title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-161/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Mons): Georges Platbrood v Office National des Pensions (ONP) (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92)— Benefits of the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance with a legal presumption ("war years presumption") where no pension right payable under another scheme (including a foreign scheme) is established for them)

text:
C 47/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 18 November 1999
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
in Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA v Commission of the
European Communities and Fédération Européenne de la                       in Case C-161/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     Santé Animale (Fedesa) (1)                            the Tribunal du Travail, Mons): Georges Platbrood v
                                                                                Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(Appeal — Veterinary medicinal products — Somatosalm —
Procedure for setting maximum residue limits — Adaptation
Committee — Failure to deliver opinion — Deadline for                      (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as
               proposing measures to the Council)                          amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92) — Benefits of
                                                                           the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more
                                                                           Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or
                            (2000/C 47/09)                                 withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State
                                                                           — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance
                                                                           with a legal presumption (‘war years presumption’) where
                     (Language of the case: French)                        no pension right payable under another scheme (including a
                                                                                foreign scheme) is established for them)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 47/10)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151/98 P: Pharos SA, established in Seraing, Belgium,
represented by A. Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                  (Language of the case: French)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17
February 1998 in Case T-105/96 Pharos v Commission[1998]                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ECR II-285, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                                 in the European Court Reports)
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) and Fédération Européenne de
la Santé Animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels, Belgium,               In Case C-161/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
represented by D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt                Travail (Labour Court), Mons, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling
and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — the Court (Fifth                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Georges
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     Platbrood and Office National des Pensions (ONP) — on the
Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),                 interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in which it:                     of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                           (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and
2. Orders Pharos SA to pay the costs;                                      M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
3. Orders the Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa)
    to pay its own costs and those of the Commission arising from
    its intervention.                                                      A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings
                                                                           under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and
                                                                           31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed to have continued
                                                                           to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                  duration throughout the period between the date on which his
                                                                           employment ceased and 31 December 1945, but under which that
                                                                           presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the
                                                                           person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State,
                                                                           does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 47/7
within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their                                 of 18 November 1999
families moving within the Community, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.                              in Case C-200/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Regeringsrätten): X AB and Y AB v Riksskatteverket (1)
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                  (Freedom of establishment — Payment made by a Swedish
                                                                           company to its subsidiary — Exemption from corporation
                                                                                tax)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                           In Case C-200/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                      of 18 November 1999                                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Regeringsrätten
                                                                           (Supreme Administrative Court) (Sweden) for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between X
in Case C-191/98 P: Georges Tzoanos v Commission of                        AB, Y AB and Riksskatteverket — on the interpretation of
                 the European Communities (1)                              Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
                                                                           EC), Article 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of
(Appeal — Dismissal of application for annulment of a                      Amsterdam), Article 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
decision ordering removal from post — Concurrent disciplin-                ment, Article 44 EC), Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now
ary and criminal proceedings (Fifth paragraph of Article 88                Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and 57 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                     of the Staff Regulations))                            amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47 EC) and Articles 58, 73b
                                                                           and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 48 EC, 56 EC and 58
                           (2000/C 47/11)                                  EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
                                                                           teur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         mann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Sag-
                                                                           gio, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
                                                                           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     which it has ruled:
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Where a Member State grants certain tax relief in respect of
                                                                           intra-group transfers made between two public limited companies
In Case C-191/98 P: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the              established in that Member State and the second of those companies
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Athens                 is wholly owned by the first, either directly or together with
(Greece), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           — one or more subsidiaries which are themselves established in that
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
                                                                                Member State and which it owns entirely, or
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of                — one or more subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have
19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission                              their seats in another Member State with which the first Member
[1998] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-343, seeking to have that                          State has concluded an agreement for the prevention of double
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                    taxation which contains a non-discrimination clause,
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: G. Valses-                 Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC),
ia, with D. Waelbroeck and O. Speltdoorn) — the Court                      Article 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam),
(First Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                  Article 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44 EC),
President of the Fifth Chamber, acting as President of the First           Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and
Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               57 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Nov-              EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude
ember 1999, in which it:                                                   that tax relief from being refused in respect of transfers made between
                                                                           two public limited companies established in that Member State,
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   where the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first
                                                                           together with several subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which
2. Orders Mr Tzoanos to pay the costs of this appeal.                      have their seat in various other Member States with which the first
                                                                           Member State has concluded agreements for the prevention of double
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 taxation which contain a non-discrimination clause.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Removal from the register of C-378/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 22 May 1997 in the case of Fitzwilliam Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS) against Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor in law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Case C-202/97)

text:
No C 212/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7 . 97
     Even the instances expressly admitted by the Federal                 Adviser, and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service,
     Republic of one-off infringements of the maximum                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     limits would, in the event of the proposal for                       Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     amendment being accepted by the Council, still not                   Centre, Kirchberg.
     lose their significance so long as the Federal Republic
     continues on average to carry out only eight to 10                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
     sampling operations per bathing season.
— Infringement of Article 6 (1 ) of the Directive :                       1 . declare that, by not giving notification of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply with Council Directive 93/76/EEC of
     The report to the Commission for 1995 shows that                          13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions
     6,5 % of bathing areas on German coasts and 42,5 %                        by improving energy efficiency ( Save ) ('), or by not
     of German internal bathing areas were not sufficiently                    having adopted the measures necessary to comply with
     monitored in 1995 .
                                                                               it, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that Directive;
                                                                          2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jersey by order of that court dated 28 April 1997, in the
case of Emidio Marco Rios against His Excellency the                      Under Article 10 of Directive 93/76/EEC, the Member
                  Lieutenant Governor of Jersey                           States were to adopt the measures necessary to comply
                          ( Case C-l 99/97 )                              with its provisions by 31 December 1994 and to inform
                                                                          the Commission thereof.
                             ( 97/C 212/40 )
                                                                          The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    yet brought its legislation into line with the Directive ,
European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of                    thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 189 of
Jersey dated 28 April 1997, which was received at the                     the EC Treaty and Article 10 of the Directive .
Court Registry on 23 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Emidio Marco Rios and His Excellency the
                                                                          (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p . 28 .
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey on the following questions:
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities (') have the effect that nationals of                    Reference       for a preliminary ruling by the
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                    Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of
     deported from Jersey ?                                               that court of 22 May 1997 in the case of Fitzwilliam
                                                                          Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does                     Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS ) against Bestuur van
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey               het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor
      from deporting a national of another Member State                   in law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
      save where such deportation is justified on grounds of                                     Bedrij fsvereniging
     public policy, public security or public health ?                                             ( Case C-202/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/42 )
 (') Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities by judgment of the
                                                                          Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court) Amsterdam of
                                                                          22 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 27 May
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of                         1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fitzwilliam
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                  Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
                           ( Case C-201 /97                               Fitzwilliam Technical Services ( FTS ) against Bestuur van
                                                                          het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor in
                              ( 97/C 212/41 )                             law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
                                                                          Bedrijfsvereniging, on the following questions:
 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   1 . ( a ) May the words 'undertaking to which he is
 on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                                    normally attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of EEC
 Communities, represented by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal                                 Regulation No 1408/71 be supplemented by other
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7. 97                      EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 212/23
            terms or conditions not expressly mentioned                       Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of
            therein ?                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
     ( b ) If so :                                                                                ( Case C-203/97)
             (i)       Can such terms or conditions be formulated                                           ( 97/C 212/43 )
                       independently by the authorities of a Member
                       State ?
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             ( ii ) May quantitative conditions — whether or
                                                                              Communities on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                       not based on Decision No 128 ( ] ) — relating
                                                                              European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
                       to the activities pursued in the different
                                                                              Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                       Member States, turnover and number of
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                       employees be imposed with regard to the
                                                                              Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
                       words ' undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                              254, Kirchberg.
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation
                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                                                                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
             ( iii ) In that context may the conditon be imposed
                       that the activities of the employer in the             — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                       different Member States be exactly the same ?                  period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission       Directive     94/1 3/EC ( ! ), the  Federal
             ( iv ) If the conditions mentioned in ( ii ) and ( iii )                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                       cannot be imposed, what conditions may be                      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and
                       imposed ?
             ( v ) Must such conditions — where imposed — be                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                       communicated to the employer before the
                       commencement of the employment ?                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support;
      (c ) If not:                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              put forward in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2 ); the relevant time limit
              (i )     Do the implementing institutions have a                expired on 1 January 1995 .
                       discrection in interpreting the words
                       'undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                               (') OJ No L 92 , 9 . 4 . 1994, p. 27 .
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation       ( 2 ) See page 16 of this Official Journal .
                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , on the basis of the
                       judgments of the Court of Justice in Case
                        C-l 9/67 (Van der Vecht ) and Case C-35/70
                        ( Manpower )?
              ( ii ) If so, what is its extent ?
                                                                               Action brought on 29 May 1997 by the Portuguese
                                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European
2 . ( a ) Is a certificate issued by the competent institution                                                Communities
              of a Member State in accordance with Article 11
                                                                                ( Case C-204/97 )
              ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 binding on
              the authorities of another Member State in all                                                 ( 97/C 212/44 )
              circumstances as regards the legal consequences it
              determines ?
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
       ( b ) If not:                                                            the European Communities on 29 May 1997 by the
               (i)       In what circumstances is it not ?
                                                                                Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes, Dr
                                                                                Angelo Sei^a Neves and Dr. Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting
               ( ii ) Can the evidential value of the certificate be           as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                         rebutted by the authorities of a Member State          the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                         without involving the institution which issued
                         the certificate ?                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               ( iii ) If not, in what must that involvement consist ?          — annul the Decision of the Commission of 6 November
                                                                                1996 on State aid No 703/95 — France, published in
 (') Decision of the Administrative Commission on Social Security                      the Official Journal of the European Communities
     of Migrant Workers .                                                              No C 70 of 6 March 1997, p. 14;
                                                                                — order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.


No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .


title: Case T-663/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/16

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
   (Case T-663/11)
   2012/C 65/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of justice

text:
3.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 188/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                     — Fourth Chamber
                             justice
                                                                           Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber
                        (1999/C 188/01)
Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice of              Mr Murray and Mr Ragnemalm, Judges
the European Communities by Decision of the Representatives
of the Governments of the Member States of 26 May 1999 (1)
for the period from 25 May 1999 to 6 October 2003,                     — Sixth Chamber
Mr Vassilios Skouris took the oath before the Court on 7 June
1999.                                                                      Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber
(1) OJ 1999 L 140, p. 25.                                                  Mr Hirsch, Mr Mancini, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm,
                                                                           Mr Schintgen and Mr Skouris, Judges
                                                                       2.    The Court has consequently decided, first, to amend
                                                                       point 2 of the decision adopted at its meeting on 14 July
Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 8 June                1998 (1), as follows:
                              1999
                        (1999/C 188/02)                                    ‘2. For each case assigned to them, the First and Second
                                                                           Chambers (to each of which four judges are attached) shall
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted                   be composed of the President of the Chamber, the
the following decisions at its meeting on 8 June 1999:                     Judge-Rapporteur and a third judge designated in accord-
                                                                           ance with a list of the judges in order of seniority. At each
                                                                           general meeting the starting-point on that list is to be
Attachment of Judge V. Skouris                                             moved down one name.’
The Court has decided that Judge V. Skouris is to be attached
to the Second and Sixth Chambers.
                                                                       3.    Second, as regards the period from 8 June 1999 to
                                                                       6 October 1999, the lists on the basis of which the composition
Composition of the Second, Fourth and
                                                                       of the Second and Sixth Chambers is determined, as set out in
Sixth Chambers
                                                                       point 4 of the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on
                                                                       14 July 1998, are amended as follows:
1.    The composition of the Second, Fourth and Sixth
Chambers for the period from 8 June to 6 October 1999 has
been determined as follows:                                            — Second Chamber
— Second Chamber
                                                                           President: Mr Hirsch
    Mr Hirsch, President of the Chamber
    Mr Mancini, Mr Schintgen and Mr Skouris, Judges                        Judge Mancini, Judge Schintgen and Judge Skouris


title: Case T-663/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/76

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament
   (Case T-663/15)
   (2016/C 048/84)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8360 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Case C-24/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Right of residence - Obligation to hold identity papers - Penalties)

text:
13.6.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 184/3
    release themselves from the obligation not to compete,                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    put forward objectively valid reasons, without                                         (Sixth Chamber)
    indicating specifically what those reasons may be.
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
                                                                           in Case C-24/97: Commission of the European
    On a proper construction of Article 3(3) and 5(2) of                  Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
    Regulation (EEC) No 123/85, the exemption granted
    by the regulation does not apply to a clause in a               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
    contract which, unless there are objectively valid              Right of residence Ð Obligation to hold identity papers
    reasons, prevents the dealer from selling new vehicles                                   Ð Penalties)
    of any other make, even at commercial premises
                                                                                (98/C 184/03)
    separate from those at which the contract goods are
    offered for sale.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    On a proper construction of Articles 4(1)(3) and
    5(2)(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 123/85, the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    exemption granted by the regulation applies to a                          published in the European Court Reports)
    clause in a contract which imposes on a dealer a fixed
    sales target and provides for penalties, extending to
    termination of the contract if the target is not met,           In Case C-24/97: Commission of the European
    provided, however, that the sales target represents             Communities (Agents: Peter Hillenkamp and Pieter Jan
    simply an obligation to use best endeavours.                    Kuijper) v. Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: Ernst
                                                                    Röder) Ð application for a declaration that by treating
                                                                    nationals of other Member States residing in Germany
2. On a proper construction of Articles 3(3) and 5(2) of            disproportionately differently, as regards the degree of
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June                fault and scale of fines, from German nationals when they
    1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty          commit a comparable infringement of the obligation to
    to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and         hold a valid identity document, the Federal Republic of
    servicing agreements, the exemption granted by the              Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    regulation does not apply to a clause in a contract             Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty and under
    which, unless there are objectively valid reasons,              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of
    prevents the dealer from selling new vehicles of any            15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
    other make, even at commercial premises separate                movement and residence within the Community for
    from those at which the contract goods are offered for          workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English
    sale.                                                           Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485) and Article 4(1) of
                                                                    Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
                                                                    abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                    within the Community for nationals of Member States
    On a proper construction of Articles 4(1)(3) and 5(2)           with regard to establishment and the provision of services
    and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, the                      (OJ L 172 of 28.6.1973, p. 14) Ð the Court (Sixth
    exemption granted by the regulation applies to a                Chamber), composed of H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
    clause in a contract which imposes on a dealer a fixed          President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, G.
    sales target and provides for penalties, which may              Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
    extend to termination of the contract if the target is          Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
    not met, provided, however, that the sales target               judgment on 30 April 1998 in which it:
    represents simply an obligation to use best endeavours
    and is determined by common agreement between the
    parties or, where they disagree, by an expert third             1. Declares that, by treating nationals of other Member
    party.                                                              States residing in Germany disproportionately
                                                                        differently, as regards the degree of fault and scale of
                                                                        fines, from German nationals when they commit a
3. The prohibition set out in Article 85(1) of the Treaty               comparable infringement of the obligation to hold a
    applies to clauses in a motor vehicle dealership                    valid identity document, the Federal Republic of
    contract which are not covered by the block                         Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    exemption if, having regard to the economic and legal               Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, Article 4 of
    context, their object or effect is perceptibly to restrict          Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    competition within the common market and they are                   the abolition of restrictions on movement and
    capable of affecting trade between Member States.                   residence within the Community for workers of
                                                                        Member States and their families and Article 4 of
                                                                        Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.                                                abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                        within the Community for nationals of Member States
                                                                        with regard to establishment and the provision of
                                                                        services;
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
     costs.                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Annulment of the
                                                                     procedure under way Ð Competition notice Ð Post
                                                                        reserved to nationals of new Member States Ð Appeal)
                                                                                (98/C 184/05)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                       of 30 April 1998                                        published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-215/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale, Bologna): Barbara Bellone v. Yokohama                 In Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                            SpA (1)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                     Dalheim, Luxembourg, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of
(Directive 86/653/EEC Ð Independent commercial agents                the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Ð National rules providing that commercial agency                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180, Route de
contracts concluded by persons not entered on the register           Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of
                      of agents are void)                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96
                        (98/C 184/04)                                Rasmussen v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-187 seeking
                                                                     to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                     proceedings being Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Alberto
                                                                     Dal Ferro) Ð the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
                                                                     General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 2 April
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-215/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale, Bologna (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Barbara Bellone and Yokohama SpA Ð on                  (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial
agents (OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17) Ð the Court (First
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             by order of that Court of 5 February 1998, in the case of
a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                  Preston and others against Wolverhampton Healthcare
                                                                     NHS Trust and others, and Fletcher and others against
                                                                                Midland Bank plc
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on                                          (Case C-78/98)
the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                (98/C 184/06)
to self-employed commercial agents precludes a national
rule which makes the validity of an agency contract
conditional upon the commercial agent being entered in               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the appropriate register.                                            European Communities by an order of the House of
                                                                     Lords, of 5 February 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             Court Registry on 23 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the case of Preston and others against
                                                                     Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others, and
                                                                     Fletcher and others against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                     following questions:


title: Case T-175/02: Action brought on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 180/35
Action brought on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against                         Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 180/61)
                         (Case T-175/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 180/60)
                                                                          By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          European Communities.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                   (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/01 (1)
—     annul decision 9567 of 28 February 2002 of the Director
      General of DG ADMIN not to add the applicant’s name                                         (2002/C 180/62)
      to the list of most deserving officials and not to promote
      him to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure;                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     make an order as to costs requiring the European
      Commission to pay them.                                             By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/01: Vereni-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           ging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
In the present application, the applicant, an official working            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
for the defendant, challenges the appointing authority’s refusal
to promote him to Grade B 1 during the 2000 promotions
procedure.
In support of his claims, he pleads:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-3/01 (1)
—     Infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      of the principle of non-discrimination;                                                     (2002/C 180/63)
—     Breach of the rights of the defence;                                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     Disregard in the present case of the obligation to provide
      reasons;                                                            By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must           ordered the removal from the register of Case T-3/01: Eerste
      be protected, and of the duty of the administration to              Nederlandse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV v Commission of the
      have regard for the wellbeing of officials.                         European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 1999 in Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 333/11
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                 Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d’Eich — appeal
                          of 29 June 1999                                  against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (First Chamber) of 21 December 1998 in Case T-
in Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic v Commission of the                   122/98 Gluiber v Council and Commission (not yet published
European Communities, supported by Ireland and the                         in the European Court Reports), seeking to have that order set
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                   aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the Council
                                                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the European
(Application for interim measures — Structural funds —                     Communities — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
Financing of Community initiatives — Modification of                       P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
                       indicative allocations)                             and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                           R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 July 1999, the
                          (1999/C 333/21)                                  operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Ms Gluiber is to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
In Case C-107/99 R: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
assisted by I.M. Braguglia) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Spey-
art), supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by
D. McGuinness and E. Kent) and United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by
D. Wyatt) — application for suspension of operation of the                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
decision of the Commission of 16 December 1998 approving
modifications to the indicative allocation of Community                                               of 8 July 1999
initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter from
the Secretary-General of the Commission dated 19 January                   in Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA v Council of
1999, and of all measures based thereon or linked thereto,                 the European Union and Commission of the European
alternatively for the adoption of other provisional measures —                                       Communities (1)
the President of the Court has made an order on 29 June 1999,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Single European Act
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                                              — Customs agent)
2. The costs are reserved.                                                                           (1999/C 333/23)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999, p. 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           In Case C-95/98 P: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, a company
                          (First Chamber)                                  incorporated under French law, established at Roubaix
                                                                           (France), represented by Pierre Ricard, Advocate with a right
                           of 5 July 1999                                  of audience before the French Conseil d’État and Cour de
                                                                           Cassation, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar,
in Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment
                             munities (1)                                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case T-113/96 Dubois
        (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                     et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, seeking
                                                                           to have that judgment set aside and seeking an order requiring
                          (1999/C 333/22)                                  the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities jointly and severally to pay to
                                                                           Édouard Dubois et Fils SA, pursuant to the second paragraph
                   (Language of the case: German)                          of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
                                                                           Article 288 EC), the sum of FRF 112 339 702 by way of
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     compensation for the damage caused to the applicant in its
                   in the European Court Reports)                          activities as a customs agent, together with an order requiring
                                                                           them to pay the costs, the other parties to the proceedings
In Case C-57/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                being the Council of the European Union (Agents: Guus
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,                    Houttuin and Maria Cristina Giorgi) and the Commission of


title: Case C-114/11: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v U. Notermans-Boddenberg (Articles 18 EC and 39 EC — Motor vehicles — Use in a Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State on the occasion of its first use on the national road network — Vehicle taken at the time of moving to the first Member State and used for both private use and for going to the place of work situated in the second Member State)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/8

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v U. Notermans-Boddenberg
   (Case C-114/11) (1)

   (Articles 18 EC and 39 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in a Member State of a private motor vehicle registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State on the occasion of its first use on the national road network - Vehicle taken at the time of moving to the first Member State and used for both private use and for going to the place of work situated in the second Member State)
   2012/C 258/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: U. Notermans-Boddenberg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC and 39 EC (now Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU) — National rules requiring payment of a registration tax on the occasion of the first use of a vehicle on the national road network — Imposition of that tax on a person who has transferred residence from another Member State, is a national of that Member State and uses, on a permanent basis, a vehicle registered in that Member State, and included in the transfer of residence, for purposes of private and work-related use involving work-related travel to that other Member State

      Operative part of the order

   Article 39 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires its residents who have moved from another Member State and have taken with them a vehicle registered in that latter Member State, on the occasion of the first use of that vehicle on the national road network, to pay a tax normally due on the registration of a vehicle in the first Member State, where that vehicle is essentially used permanently in the territory of that first Member State, even if that use includes journeys by those residents to their place of work in the second Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-302/95 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment)

text:
8 . 2 . 97            i EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 40/5
Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given          1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it has ruled:                    prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
1 . The first indent of Article 7 (2) of Council Directive                  9 1 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste
       86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                                water treatment, the Federal Republic of Germany has
       coordination of the laws of the Member States relating              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 9 of that
       to self-employed commercial agents must be                           Directive;
      interpreted as meaning that, where a commercial agent
      is responsible for a geographical area , he is entitled to      2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
      commission on transactions concluded with customers                   costs .
      belonging to that area, even if they were concluded
       without any action on his part.                                (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
2 . Article 7 (2) of Directive 86/653/EEC must be
       interpreted to the effect that the meaning of the term
       'customer belonging to that area ' must be determined,
      where the customer is a legal person, by the place
      where the latter actually carries on its commercial
      activities. Where a company carries on its commercial                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      activity in various places, or where the agent operates                                  ( Fifth Chamber )
       in several areas, other factors may be taken into
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
      account to determine the centre of gravity of the
       transaction effected, in particular the place where            in     Case     C-302/95 Commission of the             European
       negotiations with the agent took place or should, in                           Communities v. Italian Republic (')
       the normal course of events, have taken place, the
      place where the goods were delivered and the place              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
       where the establishment which placed the order is                 Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment)
       located.                                                                                ( 97/C 40/ 10 )
(■) OJ No C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                In Case C-302/95 : Commission of the European
                          (Fifth Chamber)                             Communities ( Agents: Dominique Maidani and Laura
                       of 12 December 1996
                                                                      Pignataro ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ,
                                                                      assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a
in      Case C-297/95 Commission of the European                      declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations or
         Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations —                   Council Directive 91 /271/EEC of 21 May 1991
   Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment)                concerning urban waste water treatment ( OJ No L 135 ,
                                                                      30 . 5 . 1991 , p. 40 ) or, in any event, by not notifying the
                            ( 97/C 40/09 )                            Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                      fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under the EC
                  (Language of the case: German)                      Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
                                                                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
            published in the European Court Reports)                  Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                      gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it:
In Case C-297/95 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) v. Federal                     1 . declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and Bernd                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                 with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991
 adopt within the period prescribed the measures necessary                  concering urban waste water treatment, the Italian
to comply with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment ( OJ No                        Article 19 of that Directive;
 L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p. 40 ), the Federal Republic of
 Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.               2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
 ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,             (■) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it:


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 May 2001 in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
27.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/17
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  2.    The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes                 Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited                 to the interlocutory proceedings.
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,           3.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as               4.    Costs are reserved.
follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of
      the Commission.                                                      Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
                                                                           S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
3.    Ireland shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Case T-162/01)
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                                                                                (2001/C 303/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
                              INSTANCE                                     office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
                                                                           Giménez.
                           of 28 May 2001
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of                      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                   the European Communities                                      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
                                                                                (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-                     Case R 122/2000-1 Giorgio Beverly Hills v Giorgi and
tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal                              Others, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
         services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                            mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
                                                                                registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94;
                          (2001/C 303/29)
                                                                           —     declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
                                                                                Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                tration;
In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome,                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Ales-
sandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Pleas in law and main arguments
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant to                        Proprietor of the Com-           Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of                munity trade mark:
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-
certain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President            The Community trade              Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001,               mark concerned:                  HILLS’ — Application No 417709
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                  for goods in Class 3
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to       Applicant
1.    Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito             the trade mark or sign
      Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post         asserted by way of oppo-
      Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in         sition in the opposition
      support of the form of order sought by the Commission.               proceedings:


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2000 in Case C-88/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune): Roquette Frères SA v Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais (Recovery of sums paid but not due — National procedural rules — Capital duty levied in respect of a merger)

text:
24.2.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 61/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Community law does not preclude legislation of a Member State
                                                                             laying down that, in tax matters, an action for recovery of a sum
                                                                             paid but not due based on a finding by a national or Community
                          (First Chamber)                                    court that a national rule is not compatible with a superior rule of
                                                                             national law or with a Community rule of law may only relate to the
                      of 28 November 2000                                    period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the
                                                                             judgment establishing such incompatibility.
in Case C-88/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune): Roquette
                                                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Frères SA v Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-
                              Calais (1)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due — National procedural
      rules — Capital duty levied in respect of a merger)
                           (2001/C 61/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
                                                                             gericht München by order of that court of 11 February
                                                                             2000 in the case of Giulia Pugliese against Finmeccanica
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                     s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/99: reference to the Court under Article1 177 of                                         (Case C-437/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Béthune, (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette                                          (2001/C 61/02)
Frères SA and Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais
— to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax
legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule              European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate                   München (Higher Labour Court, Munich) of 11 February 2000,
only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year                    received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2000, for a
preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompati-                  preliminary ruling in the case of Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica
bility — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet                 s.p.a., Alenia Aerospazio division on the following questions
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón,               concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Brussels
on 28 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                  Convention’; OJ 1990 C 189, p. 2):