title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf by decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the commercial register proceedings concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH (appellant: Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Händler e.V.) (Case C-97/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 145/5
Action brought on 23 March 1996 by the Commission of                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 Oberlandesgericht Diisseldorf by decision of that court of
                          ( Case C-91 /96 )                            22 November 1995 in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                            concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
                            ( 96/C 145/09 )                                      Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler e.V. )
                                                                                ( Case C-97/96 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                                          ( 96/C 145/ 10 )
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou Durande, of its               European Communities by a decision of the Third Civil
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Chamber of the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional
the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, also of the Legal               Court), Diisseldorf, of 22 November 1995 , which was
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                     received at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                       concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler                  e .V. ) on the
                                                                       following question :
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force within                Does Article 6 of the First Council Directive 68/ 151 /EEC on
      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                  company law of 9 March 1 96 8 ( 1 ) have direct effect if under
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with:              German law the ( sole ) penalty to ensure enforcement of the
                                                                       duty to disclose the yearly accounts of a private limited
      ( a ) Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December                company is the imposition by the Registration Court of an
            1992 laying down animal health and public health           administrative fine of up to DM 10 000, but the
            requirements governing trade in and imports into           Registration Court may intervene only on application from
            the Community of products not subject to the said          a partner, a creditor or the company's works council, and
            requirements laid down in specific Community               does any such possible direct effect of that provision mean
            rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive            that, in addition to the persons entitled under German law
            89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive         to make an application, any person may apply for an
            90/425/EEC ( t ),                                          administrative fine to be imposed or that such a right is
                                                                       available at least to an association of traders which under its
      ( b ) Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993                articles of association must protect the interests of its
            amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health             members who have a contractual relationship with the
            conditions governing intra-Community trade in              private limited company which has failed to comply with its
            and importation from third countries of embryos of         duty to disclose those accounts ?
            domestic animals of the bovine species ( 2 ),              (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 41 .
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations
      imposed on it by the Treaty and by those Directives .
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of
                                                                            29 February 1996 in the administrative proceedings
                                                                                between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( Case C-98/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/11 )
The period within which the Member States were to adopt
the measures necessary to transpose Directives 92/118/EEC              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and 93/52/EEC expired on 1 January 1994 .                              European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative Court ) Darmstadt —
                                                                       Fifth Chamber — of 29 February 1996 , which was received
The Hellenic Republic has not yet communicated the                     at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996, for a preliminary
adoption of such measures, notwithstanding the formal
                                                                       ruling in the administrative proceedings between Kasim
notice and the reasoned opinion addressed to it by the
Commission .
                                                                       Ertanir and Land Hessen on the following questions :
                                                                       ( a ) What are the consequences, for the maintenance of
Accordingly, it should be declared that it has failed to fulfil               work and residence permits, of breaks in lawful
its obligations .                                                             residence or periods of work without a work permit
                                                                              with regard to claims that have already arisen under
                                                                              Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
(') OJ No L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49.                                       Association Council on the development of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 21 .                                   Association ( published in the Official Reports of the
                                                                              Federal Institution of Labour [ANBA] 1981 , p . 4 ) —
                                                                              hereinafter abbreviated to ' Decision No 1 /80 ' — in so
                                                                              far as such defective periods are not treated under


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-284/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Briey): Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe-et-Moselle (Article 95 of the Treaty - Differential tax on motor vehicles)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/11
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                   1. declares that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations
assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                 and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                           with Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de                  1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.                     administrative provisions of the Member States
Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                         relating to construction products, the Kingdom of
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
18 December 1997, in which it has ruled:                                  Directive;
On a proper construction of Articles 6(1) and 11(A)(1)(a)            2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, an
undertaking given by a farmer under a national
compensation scheme not to harvest at least 20 % of his
potato crop does not constitute a supply of services for the
purposes of that Directive. Consequently, compensation
received for that purpose is not subject to turnover tax.                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.                                                                   of 18 December 1997
                                                                     in Case C-284/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Briey): Didier
                                                                     Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe-
                                                                                et-Moselle (1)
                                                                     (Article 95 of the Treaty Ð Differential tax on motor
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             vehicles)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                        (98/C 55/20)
                    of 18 December 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in   Case    C-263/96: Commission of the European
          Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 89/106/EEC Ð                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                   Construction products)                                      published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 55/19)
                                                                     In Case C-284/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Briey (Regional Court, Briey), France, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Didier Tabouillot and Directeur des Services
                                                                     Fiscaux de Meurthe-et-Moselle Ð on the interpretation of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Article 95 of the EC Treaty for the purpose of determining
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     whether the French system of motor vehicle tax is
                                                                     compatible with that provision Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
In Case C-263/96: Commission of the European                         Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. Kingdom of                  Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a                    F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on
the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to construction             A situation such as that arising from the importation into
products (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12), the Kingdom of                 a Member State of a vehicle which has come directly from
Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that              a non-member country does not fall within the scope of
Directive Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.               Article 95 of the EC Treaty.
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 December
1997, in which it:


title: Case F-107/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/36

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Berrisford v Commission
   (Case F-107/06)
   (2006/C 261/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the list of officials promoted from A*12 to A*13 in a ‘2005 promotion procedure’, and consequently not to promote the applicant, as published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as that decision was adopted although the applicant was wrongly awarded an insufficient number of priority points in that promotion procedure;

               —

               annul the decision of 6 June 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 February 2006 under No R/123/06, in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, with interest at the rate of 7 % per annum from 21 February 2006, the date of the complaint;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the General provisions implementing that article (GIP), infringement of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, infringement of the duty to give reasons and manifest errors of assessment. In particular, the applicant alleges that, despite his excellent merit appraisals and the fact that he was twice included in the ‘ex A4 reserve’ (of candidates considered deserving of promotion in the previous year's procedure but not promoted), he was not awarded the three transitional points provided for in Article 12(2)(c) of the GIP, or the four additional special priority points or even the one supplementary priority point awarded by his Directorate General and requested in the action brought before the Joint Promotion Committee for grade A officials. The applicant also puts forward the fact that the promotion rate of 5 % for A*12 officials was not reached.
   The second plea is that the principles of equal opportunity, of equal treatment of staff and of non-discrimination were infringed. According to the applicant, both the content of the rules and their implementation in the light of the transitional decisions concerning officials in the grade A*12 ‘reserve’ are unfair and discriminatory in relation to the transitional measures adopted specifically for ‘reserve officials’ from other grades. In addition, he submits that there has been discrimination within grade A*12, because of the current existence within that grade of former A*11 officials promoted previously and who received in their rucksack four additional special ‘reserve’ points, in breach of the principles cited above.
   The third plea alleges infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of sound administration and the principle of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials. According to the applicant, despite the assurances given by the authorities, the applicant's status as an official twice included in the reserve and the earlier ‘second round’ system were not taken into account. In addition, in so far as the new promotion system was applied for the first time in 2005 with regard to officials of the applicant's grade, the applicant maintains that he was entitled to expect to be treated in the same way, in particular as regards the ‘reserve’, as officials of other grades, who benefited from transitional measures intended to alleviate the disadvantages caused by the transition from the old promotion system to the new.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 15 January 1998 in Case C-113/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Henia Babahenini v. The Belgian State (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement - Article 39(1) - Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security - Direct effect - Scope - Disability allowance)

text:
C 72/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.3.98
     have had to be repaid in the normal course of events                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     would be contrary to the principle of proportionality.
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
(1) OJ C 370, 24.12.1994.                                                                 of 15 January 1998
    OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
    OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.                                              in Case C-113/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                     the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Henia Babahenini v.
                                                                                The Belgian State (1)
                                                                     (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement Ð Article 39(1) Ð
                                                                     Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social
                                                                      security Ð Direct effect Ð Scope Ð Disability allowance)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (98/C 72/03)
                      (Second Chamber)
                     of 15 January 1998
in Case C-125/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           (Language of the case: French)
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Hartmut Simon v.
            Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main (1)
(Additional milk levy Ð Date on which it becomes
payable Ð Article 15(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           Ð Meaning of any levy amount due')
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                         (98/C 72/02)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     In Case C-113/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail (Labour
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Court), Charleroi (Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the proceedings pending before that court between Henia
                                                                     Babahenini and The Belgian State Ð on the interpretation
In Case C-125/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           of Article 39(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between
of the EC Treaty from the Hessisches Finanzgericht                   the European Economic Community and the People's
(Finance Court, Hesse), Kassel (Germany), for a                      Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in Algiers on
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            26 April 1976 and concluded on behalf of the Community
court between Hartmut Simon and Hauptzollamt                         by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September
Frankfurt am Main Ð on the interpretation of                         1978 (OJ L 263, 27.9.1978, p. 1) Ð the Court (Second
Article 15(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/                Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the                 President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 139, 4.6.1988,                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in
p. 12) Ð the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R.                 which it has ruled:
Schintgen, President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998,              Article 39(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the
in which it has ruled:                                               European Economic Community and the People's
                                                                     Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in Algiers on
Article 15(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/                26 April 1976 and concluded on behalf of the Community
88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the                 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of 26 September
application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c         1978, is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State
of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 must be construed as                   from refusing to grant a benefit, such as disability
meaning that the amount of levy due refers, within the               allowance, provided for under its legislation in favour of
context of Formula A, to the amount objectively payable              nationals resident in that State and irrespective of whether
by a milk producer by reason of the fact that he has                 they have been working in an employed capacity, to the
actually exceeded his reference quantity even where the              disabled spouse of a retired Algerian worker who lives
exact amount can be established only after verification of           with her husband in the Member State in question, on the
the quantities delivered, and becomes payable on the date            ground that she is of Algerian nationality and has never
laid down in that provision, that is to say, not more than           been engaged in a trade or profession.
three months following the end of each 12-month period,
namely on the following 30 June.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 158, 1.6.1996.


title: Joined Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE, represented by ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE Lietuvos filialas v ‘If P&C Insurance’ AS, represented by ‘IF P&C Insurance’ AS filialas (C-359/14), ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS, represented by ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS Lietuvos filialas v ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C-475/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Choice of applicable law — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Directive 2009/103/EC — Accident caused by a tractor unit coupled with a trailer, each of the vehicles being insured by different insurers — Accident which occurred in a Member State other than that in which the insurance contracts were concluded — Action for indemnity between the insurers — Applicable law — Definitions of ‘contractual obligations’ and ‘non-contractual obligations’)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE, represented by ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE Lietuvos filialas v ‘If P&C Insurance’ AS, represented by ‘IF P&C Insurance’ AS filialas (C-359/14), ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS, represented by ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS Lietuvos filialas v ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C-475/14)
   (Joined Cases C-359/14 and C-475/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Choice of applicable law - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Directive 2009/103/EC - Accident caused by a tractor unit coupled with a trailer, each of the vehicles being insured by different insurers - Accident which occurred in a Member State other than that in which the insurance contracts were concluded - Action for indemnity between the insurers - Applicable law - Definitions of ‘contractual obligations’ and ‘non-contractual obligations’))
   (2016/C 098/09)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas, Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants:‘ERGO Insurance’ SE, represented by ‘ERGO Insurance’ SE Lietuvis filialas (C-359/14), ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS, represented by ‘Gjensidige Baltic’ AAS Lietuvos filialas (C-475/14)

      Defendants:‘If P&C Insurance’ AS, represented by ‘IF P&C Insurance’ AS filialas (C-359/14), ‘PZU Lietuva’ UAB DK (C-475/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as meaning that that provision does not contain any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
   Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted to the effect that the law applicable to an action for indemnity between the insurer of a tractor unit, which has compensated the victims of an accident caused by the driver of that vehicle, against the insurer of the trailer coupled to it at the time of that accident, is to be determined in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 593/2008 if the rules of liability in tort, delict and quasi-delict applicable to that accident by virtue of Article 4 et seq of Regulation No 864/2007 provide for an apportionment of the obligation to compensate for the damage.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

      OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-559/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — STIM d’Orbigny v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — STIM d’Orbigny v Commission
   (Case T-559/08) (1)

   2010/C 11/73

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-226/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet

text:
14.9.2002               EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 219/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
                                                                             the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
                          (First Chamber)                                    commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — the Court (First
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
                         of 22 March 2002                                    M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                             General; R. Grass, Administrator, for the Registrar, has made
                                                                             an order the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case C-24/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Marseille) Marseille Fret SA v
              Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd ( 1)                             The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no
                                                                             jurisdiction to reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de
(Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpret-                    Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 22 January 2002.
ation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 — National courts which may request the
Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — Manifest lack
                   of jurisdiction of the Court)                             (1 ) OJ C 97, 2002.
                          (2002/C 219/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
In Case C-24/02: reference to the Court from the Tribunal de                 by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of
Commerce, Marseille (France), for a preliminary ruling in the                      REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
proceedings pending before that court between Marseille
Fret SA and Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd — on the
interpretation of the Brussels Convention of 27 September                                               (Case C-226/02)
1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978                                                (2002/C 219/02)
of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 — amended text — p. 77), the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                         European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and the Convention of                         Regional Court) (Denmark) of 4 June 2002, received at the
29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of                         Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                   the case of REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
(OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EC)                          (Danish Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Is a CD-ROM drive which is equipped with a jack for                        Question 2:
headphones, a volume control button and a button to insert
and remove CDs, but which cannot by itself reproduce
graphics, audio, data and text, to be classified for the period            In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:
1 January 1995 to 21 November 1995 under heading
8521 90 00 in accordance with classification practice laid
down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 ( 1), or                     Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
under heading 8471 93 51 in accordance with the classifi-                  that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting
cation practice laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)                    authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review
No 2491/96 (2) and the decision adopted by the Harmonized                  procedure that the contracting authority would have been
System Committee of the World Customs Organization                         bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
(Doc. 40.260 E and Doc. 40.600 E)?                                         harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the
                                                                           finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer
                                                                           submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the
                                                                           right to bring a review procedure?
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 of 27 October 1995
     concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined
     nomenclature (OJ L 262 of 1.11.1995, p. 25).
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2491/96 of 23 December 1996             (1 ) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.
     amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
     L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 14).
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                     beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in
beamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case                    the review procedure between Grossmann Air Service
of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3.                         GmbH & Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria)
Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptver-
    band der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
                                                                                (Case C-230/02)
                           (Case C-229/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/04)
                           (2002/C 219/03)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                      (Federal Public Procurement Office) of , received at the Court
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of 14 May 2002, received
                                                                           Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
at the Court Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           review procedure between Grossmann Air Service GmbH &
in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom
                                                                           Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria) on the following
& Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against
                                                                           questions:
Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
on the following questions:
                                                                           Question 1:
Question 1:
                                                                           Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-               21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and              lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
administrative provisions relating to the application of review            of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
procedures to the award of public supply and public works                  works contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking             procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to             submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
institute a review procedure?                                              ment procedure?


title: Case C-573/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Sergiu Alexandru Micșa v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Lugoj, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Sergiu Alexandru Micșa v Administrația Finanțelor Publice Lugoj, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-573/10)
   2011/C 46/12
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Timișoara

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sergiu Alexandru Micșa

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice Lugoj, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Timiș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it precludes exemption from payment of pollution tax on the first registration in the territory of a Member State of vehicles with specific, precisely designated, technical characteristics where other vehicles are subject to payment of the tax under national provisions.

               2.

               If Article 110 TFEU precludes the exemption referred to in the first question only in certain circumstances, do such circumstances include a situation in which all, the majority or a significant number of motor vehicles produced on national territory have technical characteristics which entail the exemption (bearing in mind that such characteristics are also found in motor vehicles produced in other Member States of the EU and that the exemption applies to those, too).

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the affirmative, what are the characteristics of a product which make it similar, within the meaning of Article 110 TFEU, to a motor vehicle which has all the following characteristics:

                           (a)

                           it is new (or has not previously been sold for a purpose other than resale or supply and therefore has never been registered) or it is second-hand and has been registered in a Member State of the European Union during the period from 15 December 2008 to 31 December 2009 inclusive;

                           (b)

                           it was designed and built for the transport of passengers and has, in addition to the driver's seat, at most eight seats (vehicles in category M1, under the Romanian legislation) or was designed and built for the transport of goods with a maximum weight of 3.5 tons (vehicles in category NI, under the Romanian legislation);

                           (c)

                           it falls within pollution class Euro 4;

                           (d)

                           it has a cylinder capacity of less than 2 000 cc (a characteristic to be taken into account only in the case of vehicles in category MI).


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000 in Case C-424/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (Member State liability in the event of a breach of Community law — Breaches attributable to a public-law body of a Member State — Conditions for the liability of the Member State and of a public-law body of that State — Compatibility of a language requirement with freedom of establishment)

text:
C 302/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.10.2000
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and E.-M.
Mamouna and G. Karipsiadis) — application for a declaration
that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with                                       of 4 July 2000
the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91
Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular,
by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans                     in Case C-424/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous               from the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Salomone Haim v
waste from the area concerned without endangering human                          Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (1)
health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171           (Member State liability in the event of a breach of Com-
of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order                   munity law — Breaches attributable to a public-law body of
requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission,                 a Member State — Conditions for the liability of the Member
into the account ‘EC own resources’, a daily penalty payment              State and of a public-law body of that State — Compatibility
of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the                    of a language requirement with freedom of establishment)
measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case
C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment — the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                                            (2000/C 302/11)
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schint-
gen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
teur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                                    (Language of the case: German)
Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to                            in the European Court Reports)
      ensure that waste is disposed of in the area of Chania
      without endangering human health and without harming the
                                                                          In Case C-424/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      environment in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive
                                                                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste and by failing to draw
                                                                          (Regional Court) Düsseldorf, Germany, for a preliminary
      up for that area plans for the disposal of waste, pursuant to
                                                                          ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      Article 6 of Directive 75/442, and of toxic and dangerous
                                                                          Salomone Haim and Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nor-
      waste, pursuant to Article 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC
                                                                          drhein — on the liability of a Member State and, possibly, of a
      of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste, the Hellenic
                                                                          public-law body of that State for loss and damage caused by
      Republic has not implemented all the necessary measures to
                                                                          an infringement of Community law, and on the legality of
      comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in
                                                                          making the appointment of a national of another Member
      Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece and has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          State as a dental practitioner under a social security scheme
      obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                          conditional upon his having a sufficient knowledge of the
                                                                          language of the host State — the Court, composed of:
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      European Communities, into the account ‘EC own resources’, a        teur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      penalty payment of EUR 20 000 for each day of delay in              P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
      implementing the measures necessary to comply with the              H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      judgment in Case C-45/91, from delivery of the present              General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
      judgment until the judgment in Case C-45/91 has been                has given a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
      complied with;
                                                                          1.    Community law does not preclude a public-law body, in
                                                                                addition to the Member State itself, from being liable to make
3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;                            reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result
                                                                                of measures which it took in breach of Community law.
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             2.    In order to determine whether there is a serious breach of
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                            Community law, within the meaning of the case-law of the
                                                                                Court, account must be taken of the extent of the discretion
                                                                                enjoyed by the Member State concerned. The existence and the
                                                                                scope of that discretion must be determined by reference to
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                                      Community law and not by reference to national law.
                                                                          3.    The competent authorities of a Member State may make the
                                                                                appointment, as a social security scheme dental practitioner, of
                                                                                a national of another Member State who is established in the
                                                                                first Member State and authorised to practise there but has
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 302/7
      none of the qualifications mentioned in Article 3 of Council         regulation — the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the      teur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including       C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragne-
      measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of        malm and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. J. Mischo, Advocate
      establishment and freedom to provide services, conditional upon      General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
      his having the linguistic knowledge necessary for the exercise of    judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:
      his profession in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to denounce or adjust the agreement
                                                                                on merchant shipping with the Republic of Angola so as to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                         provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by all
                                                                                Community nationals to the cargo shares due to the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic, as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
                                                                                freedom to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                                Member States and between Member States and third countries,
                                                                                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 3 and 4(1) of that regulation;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             of 4 July 2000                                (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
in Case C-62/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services
— Maritime transport — Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now,
                after amendment, Article 307 EC)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (2000/C 302/12)                                                            of 4 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-84/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                        ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services
                     in the European Court Reports)                        — Maritime transport — Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Article 307 EC))
In Case C-62/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Caeiro, B. Mongin and M. Afonso) v Portuguese                                             (2000/C 302/13)
Republic (Agents: M.L. Fernandes and M.L. Duarte) — appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing to denounce or adjust
the agreements concerning merchant shipping concluded with
the Republic of Senegal, approved by Decree No 99/79 of                                      (Language of the case: Portuguese)
14 September 1979, with the Republic of Cape Verde,
approved by Decree No 119/79 of 7 November 1979, with
the Republic of Angola, approved by Decree No 71/79 of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
18 July 1979, and with the Democratic Republic of São Tomé                                    in the European Court Reports)
and Prı́ncipe, approved by Decree No 123/79 of 13 November
1979, so as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
access by all Community nationals to the cargo shares due to               In Case C-84/98: Commission of the European Communities
the Portuguese Republic, as provided for in Council Regulation             (Agents: A. Caeiro, B. Mongin and M. Afonso) v Portuguese
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the prin-                    Republic (Agents: M.L. Fernandes and M.L. Duarte) — appli-
ciple of freedom to provide services to maritime transport                 cation for a declaration that, by failing to denounce or adjust
between Member States and between Member States and third                  the agreement concerning merchant shipping concluded with
countries (OJ 1986 L 378 p. 1), the Portuguese Republic has                the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, approved by Decree
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4(1) of that         No 74/81 of 28 June 1979, which entered into force on


title: Case C-193/07: Order of the President of the Court of 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-193/07) (1)

   2010/C 11/32

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case T-17/04: Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Le Front National and seven others against Council of the European Union and European Parliament

text:
20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 71/37
—      Declare that the Defendants are bound to make good the              Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Le Front National
       damage that the Applicant has suffered, and may yet                 and seven others against Council of the European Union
       suffer, as a result of the adoption of Articles 4, 12(3) and                           and European Parliament
       6(2e), 9, 16 (2), (3) and (4), in conjunction with Article 2,
       Annex I and Annex Ill, No. 1, of Directive 2003/87/EC;
                                                                                (Case T-17/04)
—      Order the Defendants to bear the costs.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/65)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: French)
The applicant is a steel producing company with installations
for the production of pig iron and steel in France, Spain,
Germany and Belgium. Directive 2003/87/EC of the European
                                                                           An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 (1) establish-
                                                                           the European Communities on 13 January 2004 against the
es a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
                                                                           Council of the Union and the European Parliament by Le
within the Community. This Directive institutes a licensing
                                                                           Front National, established in St-Cloud, France, Marie- France
system for certain activities leading to the emission of green-
                                                                           Stirbois, residing in Villeneuve-Loubey, France, Bruno
house gas, among them the production of pig iron or steel,
                                                                           Gollnisch, residing in Limonest, France, Carl Lang, residing in
and makes provision for emission allowances to be allocated
                                                                           Boulogne-Billancourt, France, Jean-Claude Martinez, residing
to relevant installations. Emissions of greenhouse gases by an
                                                                           in Montpellier, France, Philip Claeys, residing in Overijse,
installation in excess of its allowance for the relevant trading
                                                                           Belgium, Koen Dillen, residing in Antwerp, Belgium, and Mario
period is subject to monetary penalties.
                                                                           Borghezio, residing in Turin, Italy, represented by a Maître
                                                                           Wallerand de St-Just, lawyer.
In support of its application the applicant submits that
the contested provisions infringe its fundamental rights to
property and the pursuit of an economic activity, by requiring             The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
it to operate its plants under economic conditions that are
unsustainable. The applicant further claims that there is very
little technological potential for steel producers to reduce their         —     Annul Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European
greenhouse gas emissions beyond the 18 % reduction already                       Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on
achieved since 1990 and that, therefore it is an infringement                    the regulations governing political parties at European
of the principle of proportionality to subject such installations                level and the rules regarding their funding;
to the Directive in question. The applicant also invokes a
breach of the principle of equality, alleging that other sectors           —     Order the European Parliament and the council to pay
in direct competition with the applicant and with comparable                     the costs and lawyers’ fees amounting to EUR 10 000.
or even higher emissions of greenhouse gases, such as
producers of non-ferrous metals and chemicals, are not subject
to the Directive. In the same context the applicant further
alleges that steel producers find themselves in a unique lock-in
situation preventing them from passing on to their clients any
monetary fines imposed for excessive emissions. The applicant              Pleas in law and main arguments
also submits that the contested provisions infringe the freedom
of establishment within the European Union by affecting its
right to transfer production freely from a less efficient plant in
one Member State to a more efficient plant in another Member               In support of their application, the applicants rely on the same
State. Finally, the applicant also invokes a breach of the                 pleas as those put forward by the applicant in Case T-13/04 (1).
principle of legal certainty, claiming that the Directive imposes          They also claim that the contested regulation infringes French
obligations whose financial implications are unforeseeable.                Law No 95-65 of 19 January 1995 on the financing of political
                                                                           parties. The latter law prohibits financing by legal persons,
                                                                           whereas the contested regulation contains no such prohibition
                                                                           and could result in evasion of the French prohibition.
(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the
     Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
     gas emission allowance trading within the Community and
     amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. OJ L 275 of 25.10.2003,
                                                                           (1) Case T-13/04 Bonde and Others v Parliament and Council.
     p. 32-46.


title: Case C-332/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edipower SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — Edipower SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-332/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edipower SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2004 in Case T-35/01: Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties — Electronic weighing scales originating in China — Undertaking with market economy status — Determination of injury — Causal link — Rights of the defence)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/33

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 October 2004
   in Case T-35/01: Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Dumping - Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties - Electronic weighing scales originating in China - Undertaking with market economy status - Determination of injury - Causal link - Rights of the defence)
   (2005/C 6/64)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-35/01: Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd, established in Shanghai (China), represented by P. Waer, lawyer, against the Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Marquardt, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and P. Nehl and subsequently by G. Berrisch, lawyers) supported by the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and T. Scharf, with an address for service in Luxembourg — action for annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain electronic weighing scales originating in China, South Korea and Taiwan (OJ 2000 L 301, p. 42) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-149/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/31

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — GS v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-149/11)
   2011/C 145/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (Eigeltingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation infringes Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 (1) infringes its freedom to exercise its professional activities and its commercial freedom, since it suffered a decline in turnover after the entry into force of the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation infringes Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           The applicant submits that Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1210/2010 also infringes its right of ownership, since that rule restricts the exercise of its right in the established and operating business.

                           —

                           Further, the contested regulation makes possible a direct infringement of the applicant’s property rights, since the euro coins in its possession are being withdrawn without compensation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the unsuitability of the contested regulation for the achievement of the aim pursued and the disproportionality of the contested regulation

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant submits that the freedom to exercise professional activities, commercial freedom and property rights can be subject to restrictions, in so far as they pursue aims in the general interest and do not represent a disproportionate infringement in relation to the aim pursued. The applicant states that the contested regulation is superfluous, unsuitable to achieve the legislature’s aim and not capable of justifying infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).


title: Case C-553/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
   (Case C-553/16)
   (2017/C 022/15)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

      Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision of national law such as Article 175(2), point 3, DOPK, which requires domestic companies which pay out income subject to withholding tax to pay interest for the period from the point at which the time limit laid down for the payment of the tax on such income expires until the day on which a non-resident company established in another Member State furnishes evidence that the requirements for the application of a double taxation convention have been fulfilled, including in cases in which, pursuant to the convention, no such tax or a lower amount thereof is to be paid, compatible with Articles 5(4) TEU and 12(b) TEU?

               2.

               Are a provision of law such as Article 175(2), point 3, DOPK and a tax practice in accordance with which companies which pay out income subject to withholding tax are charged interest for the period from the point at which the time limit laid down for the payment of the tax on such income expires until the day on which a non-resident company established in another Member State furnishes evidence that the requirements for the application of a double taxation convention entered into with the Republic of Bulgaria have been fulfilled, which is charged also in cases in which, pursuant to the convention, no such tax or a lower amount thereof is to be paid, compatible with Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65(1) and (3) TFEU?


title: Case T-429/07: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — BP Aromatics v Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — BP Aromatics v Commission
   (Case T-429/07) (1)

   2011/C 319/56
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-6/04: Action brought on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 59/16                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of                      mission considers that the United Kingdom legislation does
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                        not properly transpose these provisions in three specific
            of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                          regards. National legislation is indequate with regard to water
                                                                           abstraction plans and projects, land use plans and, in respect
                                                                           of Gibraltar, the review of existing planning rights.
                            (Case C-6/04)
                           (2004/C 59/26)
                                                                           Articles 11 and 14(2)
                                                                           Article 11 of the Directive imposes a requirement on Member
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                  States to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                priority habitats or priority species. The United Kingdom has
the European Communities on 9 January 2004 by the                          not specifically transposed this obligation. Until this provision
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     is transposed, and this duty is clearly assigned to the competent
L. Flynn and M. van Beek, acting as agents, with an address for            authorities, the Commission is unable to establish whether
service in Luxembourg.                                                     such surveillance is carried out. The same point arises in
                                                                           Article 14(2) of the Directive, which requires that where
                                                                           measures are deemed necessary, they shall include continu-
                                                                           ation of the surveillance provided for in Article 11 of the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Directive.
—     declare that, by failing to correctly transpose the require-
      ments of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conser-
      vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the          Article 12(1)(d)
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
                                                                           The transposing legislation for Great Britain and for Northern
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                           Ireland fails to provide for the obligation to take requisite
                                                                           measures to establish a system of strict protection prohibiting
                                                                           the deterioration of breeding sites or resting places as required
                                                                           by Article 12(1)(d) of the Directive.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Furthermore, with regard to Gibraltar, the enforcement powers
                                                                           foreseen in the NPO 1991 are inadequate to ensure the
                                                                           protection required by Article 12(1) of the Directive.
Article 6(2)
Whilst the United Kingdom has adopted provisions                           Article 12(4)
implementing this provision with regard to controlling poten-
tially disturbing operations, there are not provisions for all
parts of the United Kingdom which enable the competent                     Article 12(4) requires the monitoring of incidental capture and
authority to take steps to avoid the deterioration of a site. The          killing. The United Kingdom’s transposing measures contain
Commission considers that the United Kingdom has therefore                 no provisions requiring the establishment of such a monitoring
failed to fully implement Article 6(2) of the Directive to protect         system. In the absence of further information, the Commission
a designated site from deterioration due to neglect or inactivity          is unable to establish whether such monitoring is carried out.
rather than a potentially damaging operation.
                                                                           Article 13(1)
Article 6(3) and 6(4)
                                                                           Article 13(1) of the Directive requires the prohibition of the
Article 6(3) of the Directive concerns plans or projects likely            keeping, transport and sales or exchange and offering for sale
to have a significant effect on a site, for which a two-fold test          or exchange of specimens of plant species taken from the wild,
is introduced. Such plans or projects must be assessed for                 except for those taken legally before this Directive was
adverse effects on the integrity of the site following public              implemented. Once again, the Commission considers that the
consultation. Article 6(4) then requires compensatory                      national measures transposing this prohibition fail to comply
measures to be taken under certain circumstances. The Com-                 with the temporal limitation on that defence.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 59/17
Article 15                                                              Does a foreign taxpayer resident in a Member State, such as
                                                                        Germany, who is not entitled to the benefits afforded by the
Article 15 of the Directive, which requires the introduction of         Netherlands-Germany Tax Convention because he does not
a general prohibition on indiscriminate capture and killing has         satisfy the condition, laid down in that regard, that he receive
been implemented by regulation 41 of the C(NH)R 1994,                   at least 90% of his income in the Netherlands, have the right,
regulation 36(2) of the C(NH)R(NI)1995 and section 17V(2)               by virtue of EC law, to receive from the Netherlands the tax-
of the NPO 1991. These provisions make it an offence to use             free allowance and tax credit for income tax in the calculation
any of the means of capture and killing listed in Annex VI(a)           of his income from savings and investments if a foreign
and Annex VI(b) of the Directive. The Commission considers              taxpayer who in resident in another Member State, in this case
that this transposition method fails to incorporate a general           Belgium, has the right to such benefits in the calculation of his
prohibition as is required by Article 15.                               income from savings and investments by virtue of the
                                                                        Netherlands-Belgium Tax Convention (and the decision of the
                                                                        State Secretary for Finance of 21 February 2002, No CPP
                                                                        2001/2745, BNB 2002/164) despite the fact that he does not
Article 16                                                              receive at least 90 % of his income in the Netherlands?
Article 16(1) of the Directive permits derogations from the
prohibitions under Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15(a) and (b) of the
Directive in certain circumstances. Such derogations are subject
to two pre-conditions in the opening paragraph of
Article 16(1), namely that there is no satisfactory alternative
and that the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance
of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable
conservation status in their natural range. The Commission
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
considers that the national measures providing for these
                                                                        Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 23 December
derogations do not adequately transpose these pre-conditions.
                                                                               2003 in the case of in the criminal case against
                                                                                Geharo B.V.
Application of the Directive beyond territorial waters
                                                                                (Case C-9/04)
The Commission considers that the Directive applies beyond
the territorial waters. Specifically, the United Kingdom has
failed to transpose the obligations to designate special areas of                                   (2004/C 59/28)
conservation under Article 4 of the Directive and to provide
species protection under Article 12 of the Directive inasmuch
as the transposing legislation does not apply beyond the
United Kingdom’s territorial waters.                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
(1) of 21 May 1992 (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).                               der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                                                                        23 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 12 Janu-
                                                                        ary 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of in the criminal
                                                                        case against Geharo B.V. on the following question:
                                                                        Does the second sentence of Article 1 of Directive 91/338/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof                   EEC (1) (cadmium directive) preclude the application of the
Herzogenbusch by judgment of that Court of 8 January                    rules in that directive regarding the cadmium content of
2004 in the case of E. Bujura against Inspecteur van de                 (finished) products and components, as set out in the Annex
  Belastingdienst Limburg / Kantoor Buitenland, Heerlen                 thereto, to toys within the meaning of Directive 88/378/
                                                                        EEC (2) (toy safety directive)?
                          (Case C-8/04)
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 91/338/EEC of 18 June 1991 amending for the
                         (2004/C 59/27)                                     10th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
                                                                            laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                            States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
                                                                            dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 186 of 12.07.1991,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      p. 59 — Corrigendum in OJ L 253, 10.9.1991, p. 26).
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                     (2) Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approxi-
Herzogenbusch (s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal)                    mation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of
of 8 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 12 January             toys (OJ L 187 of 16.07.1988, p. 1).
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of E. Bujura
against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Limburg / Kantoor
Buitenland, Heerlen on the following question: