title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-242/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): GT-Link A/S v. De Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (Transport by sea - Harbour duties on shipping and goods - Import surcharge - Abuse of a dominant position)

text:
27. 9 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 295/5
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for              2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
Trade and Industry ) ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between                  H OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en
Vlees — on the validity of Commission Decision 95/119/
EC of 7 April 1995 concerning certain protective measures
with regard to fishery products originating in Japan ( OJ
L 80, 8 . 4. 1995, p. 56) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon
(Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                                               of 17 July 1997
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 July 1997, in which it has ruled:                                  in Case C-242/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Østre Landsret): GT-Link A/S v. De Danske Statsbaner
                                                                                (DSB ) O
Examination of Commission Decision 95/119/EC of
7 April 1995 concerning certain protective measures with              (Transport by sea — Harbour duties on shipping and
regard to fishery products originating in Japan has not               goods — Import surcharge — Abuse of a dominant
revealed any factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.                                      position)
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/08 )
H OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                      In Case C-242/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                         of 17 July 1997                              of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret (Denmark ) for a
in Case C-2 19/95 P: Ferriere Nord SpA v. Commission of               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                 the European Communities (')                         court between GT-Link A/S and De Danske Statsbaner
                                                                      ( DSB ) on the interpretation of Articles 9 to 13 , 84 , 86, 90
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                 and 95 of the EEC Treaty, the Court ( Sixth Chamber),
                               Treaty)                                composed of: G. E Mancini, President of the Chamber,
                          ( 97/C 295/07)                              J. L. Murray and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                      F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                      Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 July
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       1997, in which it has ruled:
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                       1 . It is contrary to Article 95 of the EEC Treaty for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                         Member State to impose a 40% import surcharge on a
                                                                           general duty levied on goods loaded, unloaded, or
In Case C-219/95P: Ferriere Nord SpA, a company                            otherwise taken on board or landed within its ports or
incorporated under the laws of Italy, established in                       in the deep-water approach channels to its ports where
 Osoppo ( Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of                 goods are imported by ship from another Member
the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   State.
 at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias
Hardt — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber ) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-143/             2 . It is for the domestic legal order of each Member State
 89 Ferriere Nord v. Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-917,                        to lay down the detailed procedural rules, including
 seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to               those relating to the burden of proof, governing
the proceedings being Commission of the European                           actions for safeguarding rights which individuals
 Communities ( Agent: Enrico Traversa, assisted by Alberto                 derive from the direct effect of Article 86 of the
 Dal Ferro ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of:                    Treaty, provided that such rules are not less favourable
 G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray,                    than those governing similar domestic actions and do
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm                              not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult
 ( Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R.                     the exercise of rights conferred by the Community
 Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1997, in                legal order.
 which it:
                                                                       3 . Where a public undertaking that owns and operates a
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                 commercial port occupies a dominant position in a
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/6                1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27 . 9 . 97
     substantial part of the common market, it is contrary             Oberverwaltungsgericht fur das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
     to Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction with Article 86 of the          ( Higher Administrative Court for the Land of North
     Treaty for that undertaking to levy port duties of an             Rhine Westphalia ) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in
     unreasonable amount pursuant to regulations adopted               the proceedings pending before that court between SAM
     by the Member State to which it is answerable or for              Schiffahrt GmbH, Heinz Stapf and Federal Republic of
     it to exempt its own ferry services from payment of               Germany — on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     those duties and, reciprocally, some of its trading               No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements
     partners ' ferry services, in so far as such exemptions           in inland waterway transport ( OJ L 116 , 28 . 4. 1989 ,
     involve application of dissimilar .conditions to                  p. 25 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1102/89
     equivalent transactions. It is for the national court to          of 27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     determine whether, having regard to the level of the              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101/89 ( OJ L 116 ,
     duties and the economic value of the services supplied,           28 . 4 . 1989, p. 30 ), as amended by Commission
     the amount of duty is actually unfair. It is also for the         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3685/89 of 8 December 1989 ( OJ
     national court to determine whether exempting its                 L 360, 9 . 12 . 1989 , p. 20 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
     own ferry services, and reciprocally those of some of             composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
     its trading partners, from payment of duties in fact              Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.
     amounts to the application of dissimilar conditions to            R Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     equivalent transactions.                                          Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       in which it has ruled :
4 . Article 90 (2) of the Treaty does not permit a public
     undertaking which owns and operates a commercial
     port to levy port duties charged for the use of port
     facilities which are contrary to Community law and                Examination of the questions referred has revealed no
     which are not necessary for the performance of the                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
     particular task assigned to it.                                   Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989, on
                                                                       structural improvements in inland waterway transport,
                                                                       and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1102/89 of
5 . The persons or undertakings on whom the duty was                   27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     imposed in breach of Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction               implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89, as amended
     with Article 86 of the Treaty by a public undertaking             by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3685/89 of
     which is responsible to a national ministry and whose             8 December 1989 .
     budget comes under the Finance Act have in principle
     the right to repayment of the duty unduly paid.
                                                                        H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
(•) OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 17 July 1997                                                       of 17 July 1997
in Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 ( references for a               in Case C-3 54/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht fur                  the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ): SAM Schiffahrt GmbH,                    Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
        Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )                       parte: National Farmers' Union and Others ( ')
 (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —                 (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
Contributions to Scrapping Fund — Validity of                           No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control
                       Community legislation)                           system for certain Community aid schemes —
                            ( 97/C 295/09 )                             Implementing rules — Interpretation and validity of
                                                                                penalties)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                                   ( 97/C 295/ 10 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                        (Language of the case: English)
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 : references to the               In Case C-354/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                       of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's


title: Case T-12/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — SBS TV and SBS Danish Television v Commission (State aid — Recapitalisation of a public service broadcaster following a first decision ordering recovery of incompatible State aid — Decision not to raise any objections — Annulment of the first decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — SBS TV and SBS Danish Television v Commission
   (Case T-12/05) (1)

   (State aid - Recapitalisation of a public service broadcaster following a first decision ordering recovery of incompatible State aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Annulment of the first decision - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 282/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SBS TV A/S, formerly TV Danmark A/S (Skovlunde, Denmark) and SBS Danish Television Ltd, formerly Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd (Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented initially by D. Vandermeersch, T. Müller-Ibold, K. Nordlander and H. Peytz, and subsequently by D. Vandermeersch, H. Peytz and K.- U. Karl, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Kahn and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde, Agent, and by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers); and TV 2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by O. Koktvedgaard and M. Thorninger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 3632 final of 6 October 2004 relating to the recapitalisation of TV 2/Danmark A/S.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision in the present action;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v Österreichische Nationalbank, (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank — Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in Annex I B)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/17
2.    On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/                directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the                   and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
      grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the              down by Article 10 of that directive.
      main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
      territory of the competent Member State, that condition must           2.    In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
      be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of          several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
      another Member State.                                                        and I B to Directive 92/50, far from depriving it of its
                                                                                effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
                                                                                directive. When, following the classification thus made by
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                       reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
                                                                                Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
                                                                                authority to separate from the contract in question the services
                                                                                referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
                                                                                respect of them.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
                                                                                the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                                50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
                                                                                that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
                       of 14 November 2002                                         the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
                                                                                In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v                                   in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
                Österreichische Nationalbank (1),                                  Annex I A to the Directive.
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope                      (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
                              Annex I B)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2002/C 323/20)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 14 November 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
                                                                             Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
                                                                             OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
                                                                             Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                               Dimosio (1)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the                        (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June                     services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                      all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                     ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                              transport and transport to third countries)
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,                                             (2002/C 323/21)
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The determination of the regime applicable to public service                                in the European Court Reports)
      contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
      to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the       EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-


title: Case F-32/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — DO v ESMA (Civil service — ESMA staff — Member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of contract — Staff report — Delay in drawing up staff report — Inconsistency of general and specific assessments)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — DO v ESMA
   (Case F-32/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - ESMA staff - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of contract - Staff report - Delay in drawing up staff report - Inconsistency of general and specific assessments))
   (2015/C 171/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DO (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: R. Vasileva, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary agent contract as a consequence of the negative appraisal report, for annulment of the above-mentioned appraisal report and for compensation for the loss suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that DO is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Securities and Markets Authority.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 45.


C 233/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-289/00 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-210/01 ( 1)
                        (2002/C 233/32)                                                         (2002/C 233/35)
By order of 3 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 15 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
register of Case C-289/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling         removal from the register of Case C-210/01: Commission of
by the Corte d’appello di Genova): Fincantieri — Cantieri             the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Navali Italiani SpA and Finmeccanica SpA v Federico Bianchi
and Others.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-458/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case   C-352/00 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/36)
                        (2002/C 233/33)
                                                                      By order of 19 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 register of Case C-458/01: Commission of the European
register of Case C-352/00: Italian Republic v Council of the          Communities v Italian Republic.
European Union.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-50/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-86/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 233/34)                                                         (2002/C 233/37)
By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of      By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities ordered the removal from the                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-86/01: Commission of the European Com-             the register of Case C-50/02: Commission of the European
munities v Republic of Austria.                                       Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                           (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case C-232/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — Transport sector — Inter-regional bus transport services — Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 — Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations — National judicial decision — Aid incompatible with the internal market)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/17

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 — Simet SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-232/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Transport sector - Inter-regional bus transport services - Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 - Right to compensation for expenses arising from the performance of public service obligations - National judicial decision - Aid incompatible with the internal market))
   (2017/C 168/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: A. Clarizia, C. Varrone and P. Clarizia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Simet SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-358/09 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2009 by DSV Road NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 in Case T-219/07 DSV Road NV v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/17

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2009 by DSV Road NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2009 in Case T-219/07 DSV Road NV v Commission
   (Case C-358/09 P)
   2009/C 297/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: DSV Road NV (represented by: A. Poelmans and G. Preckler, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the appellant’s appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               Set aside in full the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 in Case T-219/07;

               —

               And in so far as, in the event of setting aside the judgment, the Court decides to rule in the case itself:
               Annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 24 April 2007 concerning the request of the Kingdom of Belgium, notified under REC 05/02, C (2007) 1776, which found that the import duties of EUR 168 004,65 which were the subject of the Kingdom of Belgium’s request of 12 August 2002 had to be recovered, and that there was no justification for remission of the import duties of EUR 168 004,65 which were the subject of the Kingdom of Belgium’s request of 12 August 2002.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               With regard to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code (1)

               First ground of appeal: When applying Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, the Court of First Instance failed to take account of the interpretation of that article by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 9 March 2006, (2) in particular with regard to the substance of the burden of proving that incorrect certificates had been issued because of an incorrect account of the facts by the exporter, a burden which, according to that judgment, is not only unequivocally that of the customs authority seeking recovery but must also be satisfied by means of objective, original documentary evidence.
               The Court of First Instance thereby misapplied Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code and thus misapplied, and therefore infringed, Community law.
               Second ground of appeal: The Court of First Instance, when appraising the evidence submitted to it, misconstrued that evidence in all respects, as that evidence does not satisfy the requirements of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, as interpreted and clarified by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 9 March 2006. (3)

               The Court of First Instance thereby erred in law in its characterisation of the evidence and therefore infringed Community law. (4)

               Moreover, when appraising the evidence, the Court of First Instance did not rule coherently, but inconsistently in that, on the one hand, it regarded that evidence as sufficient to satisfy the Commission’s burden of proving that incorrect certificates had been issued because of an incorrect account of the facts by the exporter but, on the other hand, in regard to the same rules, rejected it as insufficient to satisfy the proof required of the appellant that the Thai customs authorities knew, or at least reasonably ought to have known, that the goods were not eligible for preferential treatment.
               The Court of Justice should rule that the errors of the Court of First Instance when considering and appraising the documents adduced as evidence constitute a failure to state reasons. (5)

               2.

               With regard to Article 239 of the Customs Code
               Sole ground of appeal: On the basis of a misapplication of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code and/or the errors in appraising the documents submitted as evidence, the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the circumstances in which the appellant finds itself is not a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.1).

      (2)  Case C-293/04 Beemsterboer [2006] ECR I-2263.

      (3)  Ibid.

      (4)  Order in Case C-325/94 P An Taisce and WWF UK v Commission [1996] ECR I-3739, paras. 28 and 30.

      (5)  Case C-32/95 P Commission v Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5399, para 40.


title: Case C-607/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Bookit Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemption — Article 135(1)(d) — Transactions concerning payments and transfers — Meaning — Purchase of cinema tickets by telephone or via the Internet — Payment by debit card or credit card — ‘Card handling’ services)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Bookit Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-607/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption - Article 135(1)(d) - Transactions concerning payments and transfers - Meaning - Purchase of cinema tickets by telephone or via the Internet - Payment by debit card or credit card - ‘Card handling’ services))
   (2016/C 260/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bookit Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for therein for transactions concerning payments and transfers is not applicable to a ‘card handling’ service, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a taxable person, the provider of that service, where an individual purchases, via that service provider, a cinema ticket which the service provider sells for and on behalf of another entity, and which the individual pays for by debit card or by credit card.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case T-165/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity and revocation proceedings — Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI — Registration of the name of a well-known person as a trade mark — Article 52(2)(a) and Article 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI)
   (Case T-165/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI - Registration of the name of a well-known person as a trade mark - Article 52(2)(a) and Article 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Elio Fiorucci (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G. Sironi and F. Rossi, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Edwin Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: D. Rigatti, M. Bertani, S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, Lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 (Decision R 238/2005-1) concerning invalidity and revocation proceedings between Mr Elio Fiorucci and Edwin Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2006 (Case R 238/2005-1) in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Codice della Proprietà Industriale (Italian Industrial Property Code);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by Mr Elio Fiorucci;

               4.

               Orders Edwin Co. Ltd to pay its own costs and one third of those incurred by Mr Elio Fiorucci.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-714/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark MIGHTY BRIGHT — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Gold Crest v OHIM (MIGHTY BRIGHT)
   (Case T-714/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark MIGHTY BRIGHT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 346/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gold Crest LLC (Goleta, United States) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2038/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MIGHTY BRIGHT as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gold Crest LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C–168/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Article 64 — Transitional provisions — Application to a judgment given in a Member States which acceded to the European Union in 2004 — Article 3(1) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to divorce — Relevant connecting factors — Habitual residence — Nationality — Spouses residing in France and each holding French and Hungarian nationality)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)
   (Case C–168/08) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Article 64 - Transitional provisions - Application to a judgment given in a Member States which acceded to the European Union in 2004 - Article 3(1) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to divorce - Relevant connecting factors - Habitual residence - Nationality - Spouses residing in France and each holding French and Hungarian nationality)
   2009/C 220/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady)

      Defendant: Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 19) and of Articles 3 and 64 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Conditions for the recognition of a divorce judgment — Relevant connecting factors: residence or nationality of the parties

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where the court of the Member State addressed must verify, pursuant to Article 64(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, whether the court of the Member State of origin of a judgment would have had jurisdiction under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, the latter provision precludes the court of the Member State addressed from regarding spouses who each hold the nationality both of that State and of the Member State of origin as nationals only of the Member State addressed. That court must, on the contrary, take into account the fact that the spouses also hold the nationality of the Member State of origin and that, therefore, the courts of the latter could have had jurisdiction to hear the case.

               2.

               Where spouses each hold the nationality of the same two Member States, Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 precludes the jurisdiction of the courts of one of those Member States from being rejected on the ground that the applicant does not put forward other links with that State. On the contrary, the courts of those Member States of which the spouses hold the nationality have jurisdiction under that provision and the spouses may seise the court of the Member State of their choice.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-636/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2011 — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2011 — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-636/11)
   2012/C 98/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karl Berger

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) preclude rules of national law under which the public may be informed, and may be given the name of the food or animal feed product and of the food or animal feed business under the name or corporate name of which the food or animal feed product was produced or handled or placed on the market, if food that is not injurious to health but is unfit for consumption, particularly food that is nauseating, is or has been placed on the market in significant quantities or if, because of its particular nature, such food has been placed on the market only in small quantities but over a lengthy period of time?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Would the answer to Question 1 be different if the situation at issue arose prior to 1 January 2007, but at a time at which national law had already been brought into line with Regulation No 178/2002?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).


title: Case T-110/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Italy v Commission (Avian influenza — Exceptional support measures in the egg sector — Absence of exceptional support measures in the poultrymeat sector — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-110/05) (1)

   (Avian influenza - Exceptional support measures in the egg sector - Absence of exceptional support measures in the poultrymeat sector - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)
   (2006/C 224/95)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2102/2004 of 9 December 2004 on certain exceptional market support measures for eggs in Italy (OJ 2004 L 365, p. 10), in so far as it fails to provide exceptional market support measures in the poultrymeat sector in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14. 5.2005.


title: Case T-89/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2009 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure concerning a chauffeur driven car and minibus service for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg — Rejection of a tender — Obligation to state reasons — Refusal to disclose the price proposed by the successful tenderer — Action for damages)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2009 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
   (Case T-89/07) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure concerning a chauffeur driven car and minibus service for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state reasons - Refusal to disclose the price proposed by the successful tenderer - Action for damages)
   2009/C 153/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer and S. Leuvrey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Petersheim and M. Ecker, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the Parliament to refuse to award to the applicant the public contract which was the subject of tendering procedure PE/2006/06/UTD/1 concerning a chauffeur-driven car and minibus service for Members of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision by which the European Parliament refused to award to VIP Car Solutions SARL the public contract which was the subject of tendering procedure PE/2006/06/UTD/1;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007.


title: Case C-180/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) by order of that court of 15 March 2004 in the case of Andrea Vassallo against Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) by order of that court of 15 March 2004 in the case of Andrea Vassallo against Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate
   (Case C-180/04)
   (2004/C 156/12)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) of 15 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrea Vassallo against Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate on the following questions:

               1.

               In view of the principles of non-discrimination and effectiveness, having regard in particular to the measures taken by Italy in relation to employment relationships with non-public-sector employers, must Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (Article 1, and Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work set out in the directive) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national provisions such as those in Article 36 of Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001 which do not determine ‘under what conditions fixed-term employment contracts or relationships shall be deemed to be contracts or relationships of indefinite duration’, and in fact contain an absolute prohibition from the outset on the establishment of employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting from abuse relating to the use of fixed-term contracts and relationships?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in view of the expiry of the time-limit for its implementation, must Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (and in particular Clause 5 of the Annex thereto) and the applicable principles of Community law be considered, also in the light of Legislative Decree No 368/2001 and particularly Article 5 thereof, which provides as a usual consequence of abuse of fixed-term contracts or relationships for conversion to a relationship of indefinite duration, to confer on individuals an actual right, which may be exercised immediately, in accordance with the national law most relevant to the present case (Legislative Decree No 368/2001) to recognition of the existence of an employment relationship of indefinite duration?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and the second question in the negative, in view of the expiry of the time-limit for its implementation, must Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (and in particular Clause 5 of the Annex thereto) and the applicable principles of Community law be considered to confer on individuals a right to reparation for any loss or damage caused by the failure of the Italian Republic to adopt appropriate measures to prevent abuse relating to the use of fixed-term contracts and/or relationships with employers in the public sector?


title: Case C-212/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 21 May 2008 — Société Zeturf Limited v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales, Ministre de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de l'Emploi — Intervening party: G.I.E. Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 21 May 2008 — Société Zeturf Limited v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales, Ministre de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de l'Emploi — Intervening party: G.I.E. Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)
   (Case C-212/08)
   (2008/C 197/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Zeturf Limited

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, Ministre de l'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales, Ministre de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de l'Emploi — intervening party: G.I.E. Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which has established a system whereby off-course horserace betting is managed exclusively by a single, non-profit-making operator where, although that system appears to fit the purpose of combating criminality and thus of protecting public order more effectively than would less restrictive measures, it is accompanied by a dynamic commercial policy on the part of the operator, in order to neutralise the risk of unauthorised gambling networks emerging and to channel bettors towards the lawful offer, that does not, in consequence, fully achieve the objective of reducing gambling opportunities?

               2.

               Is it appropriate, in order to determine whether national legislation such as that in force in France, which has established a system whereby off-course horserace betting is managed exclusively by a single, non-profit-making operator, is contrary to Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to assess the impairment of freedom to provide services solely from the point of view of the restrictions placed on offering on-line horserace betting, or is it appropriate to take into consideration the entire horserace betting sector in whatever form it is offered and is accessible to bettors?


title: Case F-23/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Allen v Commission (Civil service — Social security — Serious illness — Article 72 of the Staff Regulations — Extension of sickness cover under the JSIS — Criterion of absence of insurance under another scheme)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Allen v Commission
   (Case F-23/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Social security - Serious illness - Article 72 of the Staff Regulations - Extension of sickness cover under the JSIS - Criterion of absence of insurance under another scheme)
   2011/C 362/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Finola Allen (Armacão de Pera, Portugal) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision to reject the application for recognition that the applicant has a serious illness.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of 30 June 2009, 17 July 2009 and 7 January 2010 by which the European Commission refused to recognise that Ms Allen was suffering from a serious illness and refused to extend her sickness cover;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder of the heads of claim;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 58.


title: Case T-64/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/37

      Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission
      (Case T-64/13) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 016/59)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Doc@Hand project, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the sums it owes the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-486/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/42

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-486/09)
   2010/C 24/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and N. Bambara, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 9 of the regulation;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 1 in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to issue a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals by 14 August 2003.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (OJ 2002 L 157, p. 1).


title: Case C-9/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 6 January 2012 — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 6 January 2012 — Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA
   (Case C-9/12)
   2012/C 73/38
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de Commerce de Verviers

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corman-Collins SA

      Defendant: La Maison du Whisky SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where appropriate in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) and (b), be interpreted as precluding a rule of jurisdiction, such as that set out in Article 4 of the Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, which provides for the jurisdiction of Belgian courts where the exclusive distributor has its registered office in Belgian territory and where the distribution agreement covers all or part of that territory, irrespective of where the grantor of the exclusive distribution rights has its registered office, where the latter is the defendant?

               2.

               Should Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an exclusive distribution of goods agreement, pursuant to which one party purchases goods from another party for resale in the territory of another Member State?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative, should Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that it refers to an exclusive distribution agreement, such as that at issue between the parties?

               4.

               If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative, is the contested obligation in the event of the termination of an exclusive distribution agreement the obligation of the seller-grantor or that of the buyer-distributor?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-3/12: Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/18

         Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)
   (Case T-3/12)
   2012/C 65/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2011 in Case R 1804/2010-2; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MEMBER OF €e euro experts’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is an alleged danger that the public will be misled as regards the quality of the goods and services designated by the mark; infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the mark contains a heraldic imitation of European flag No 3556 (circular number) deposited at WIPO pursuant to Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; and infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as it is alleged that the applicant’s mark monopolises the ‘€’ symbol which was determined graphically by the Communication from the European Commission COM (97) 418 final.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no identical reproduction of the official ‘€’ sign which is necessary for that article to apply; in the alternative, the conditions relating to the derogation in Article 6ter(1)(c) of the Paris Convention have in any event been met as the public would not assume that the applicant’s figurative mark is connected with the European Monetary Union (or the European Union); in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the European Commission expressly referred to Article 7(1)(c) in its application for a declaration of invalidity, with the result that it can only be assumed that there was an error in making the application and that its reliance on the ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(g) for the first time in the appeal proceedings must be regarded as belated and inadmissible.


title: Case C-172/06: Action brought on  31 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/35

         Action brought on 31 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-172/06)
   (2006/C 131/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by making the grant of public aid to economic operators who wish to market in Spain solar captors manufactured and lawfully marketed in another Member State or manufactured in a country which is a signatory to the Agreement on the European Economic Area subject to the condition that those captors must have a certificate of conformity which satisfies the requirements laid down in the national rules and, for that purpose, to undergo in a specially designated national laboratory for tests already carried out in that State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Spanish provisions on the conditions of access to public aid for solar captors from another Member State or a country which is a signatory to the Agreement on the European Economic Area are contrary to the fundamental principle of free movement of goods and cannot be justified for any of the reasons of general interest laid down in Article 30 of the EC Treaty or by any of the overriding requirements recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-333/10: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2014  — ATC and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Importation of birds — Agreement on the quantified amounts of the award of compensation for the damages suffered — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/37

         Order of the General Court of 17 September 2014 — ATC and Others v Commission
   (Case T-333/10) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Importation of birds - Agreement on the quantified amounts of the award of compensation for the damages suffered - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 409/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Animal Trading Company (ATC) BV (Loon op Zand, Netherlands); Avicentra NV (Malle, Belgium); Borgstein Birds and Zoofood Trading VOF (Wamel, Netherlands); Bird Trading Company Van der Stappen BV (Dongen, Netherlands); New Little Bird’s srl (Anagni, Italy); Vogelhuis Kloeg (Zevenbergen, Netherlands) and Giovanni Pistone (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: M. Osse and J. Houdijk, lawyers

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Jimeno Fernández and B. Burggraaf, and subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernández and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption first, of Commission Decision 2005/760/EC of 27 October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain third countries for the import of captive birds (OJ 2005 L 285, p. 60), as extended, and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 of 23 March 2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof (OJ 2007 L 84, p. 7).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Animal Trading Company (ATC) BV, Avicentra NV, Borgstein Birds and Zoofood Trading VOF, Bird Trading Company Van der Stappen BV, New Little Birds Srl, Vogelhuis Kloeg and M. Giovanni Pistone are to bear their own costs.

               3.

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-74/05: Action brought on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Action brought on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-74/05)
   (2005/C 82/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1) or ensuring that management and labour introduced the necessary measures by agreement and/or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions or measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 1 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ No L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.


title: Case C-12/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht by order of 19 December 2001 in criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli

text:
C 84/50                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                 1.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
Hannover by order of 12 December 2002 in the case of                          rules of national law (in this case Paragraph 13(3) of
Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische Krankenkas-                         the Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift für Beihilfen in
se-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversicherungsan-                       Krankheits-, Pflege-, Geburts- und Todesfällen (General
                       stalt für Angestellte                                  Administrative Provisions concerning Assistance in the
                                                                              Event of Sickness, Treatment, Birth and Death — ‘the
                         (Case C-502/01)                                      Assistance Provisions’) which render the assumption of
                                                                              the costs of a health cure in another Member State
                                                                              conditional on the health cure being absolutely necessary
                          (2002/C 84/86)                                      outside the Federal Republic of Germany on account of
                                                                              greatly increased prospects of success, on this being
                                                                              proven by a report from a medical officer or a medical
                                                                              consultant, and on the spa concerned being listed in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Register of Spas?
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Hannover
(Social Court, Hanover) of 12 December 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling            2.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
in the case of Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische                      rules of national law (in this case point 3 in the first
Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversi-                       sentence of Paragraph 13(3) of the Assistance Provisions,
cherungsanstalt für Angestellte [Federal Insurance Office for                 read in conjunction with Paragraph 8(3)(2) thereof) under
Clerical Staff], on the following questions:                                  which advance recognition of a health cure is not possible
                                                                              if the person concerned does not wait for the application
(a)  Can the expressions ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘old-age benefit’             procedure or any subsequent court proceedings to be
     within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation                            concluded before commencing the health cure and the
     No 1408/71 (1) cover benefits paid by one insurer to                     only matter in dispute is whether the rules of national
     another if the insured derives only an abstract and indirect             law correctly rule out eligibility for assistance in the form
     advantage therefrom (payment of pension insurance                        of a health cure in a Member State of the European
     contributions by the care insurance fund on behalf of a                  Union?
     voluntary carer)? If they can, under what circumstances
     can they do so?
(b) Is there a prohibition of discrimination under primary or
     secondary Community law from which it follows that a
     benefit as described in (a) above is to be granted
     irrespective of whether the activity conferring the
     entitlement to benefit is carried on in Germany or in
     another EU Member State, and irrespective of where the             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
     insured or the immediate beneficiary has his residence?            Oberstes Landesgericht by order of 19 December 2001 in
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli
(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
                                                                                (Case C-12/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/88)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
gericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in                     European Communities by order of the Bayerisches Oberstes
the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für               Landesgericht (Bavarian Supreme Court) of 19 December
                               Arbeit                                   2001, received at the Court Registry on 16 Janaury 2002, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Marco
                           (Case C-8/02)                                Grilli on the following question:
                          (2002/C 84/87)
                                                                        Is Article 29 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national rule
                                                                        that makes it a criminal offence for an Italian national to
                                                                        obtain a transit registration mark from the competent Italian
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  authorities, affix licence plates bearing that mark to a vehicle
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                 offered for sale in Germany, and then drive that vehicle on the
Sigmaringen (Sigmaringen Administrative Court) of 28 Nov-               public highway from Germany to Italy?
ember 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 January
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ludwig Leichtle
against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:


title: Case C-116/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Ried i.I. (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Ried i.I. (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2009 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno
   (Case C-116/09)
   2009/C 129/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bezirksgericht Ried i.I.

      Defendants in the main proceedings

   Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 43 EC (Treaty establishing the European Community, in the version of 2 October 1997, most recently amended by the Treaty of 25 April 2005 (1) concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union) to be interpreted as precluding a provision which provides that only public limited companies established in the territory of a particular Member State may there operate games of chance in casinos, thereby necessitating the establishment or acquisition of a company limited by shares in that Member State?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain types of gaming, such as games of chance in casinos, if there is no consistent and systematic policy whatsoever in the Member State concerned to limit gaming, inasmuch as national licensed organisers encourage participation in gaming — such as public sports betting and lotteries — and advertise such gaming (on television and in newspapers and magazines) in a manner which goes as far as offering a cash payment for a lottery ticket shortly before the lottery draw is made (‘TOI TOI TOI — Believe in luck!’)?

               3.

               Are Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a provision under which all licences granting the right to operate games of chance and casinos are issued for a period of 15 years on the basis of a scheme under which Community competitors (not belonging to that Member State) are excluded from the tendering procedure?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11


title: Joined Cases C-227/13 P to C-239/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, (C-227/13 P), Hotel Gabrielli Srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, (C-228/13 P), GE.AL.VE. Srl, (C-229/13 P), Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl, (C-230/13 P), Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, (C-231/13 P), Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), (C-232/13 P), Principessa Srl, in liquidation, (C-233/13 P), Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, (C-234/13 P), Savoia e Jolanda Srl, (C-235/13 P), Biasutti Hotels Srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc, (C-236/13 P), Ge.A.P. Srl, (C-237/13 P), Rialto Inn Srl, (C-238/13 P), Bonvecchiati Srl, (C-239/13 P); other parties: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ , Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl, Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/21

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, (C-227/13 P), Hotel Gabrielli Srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, (C-228/13 P), GE.AL.VE. Srl, (C-229/13 P), Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl, (C-230/13 P), Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, (C-231/13 P), Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), (C-232/13 P), Principessa Srl, in liquidation, (C-233/13 P), Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, (C-234/13 P), Savoia e Jolanda Srl, (C-235/13 P), Biasutti Hotels Srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc, (C-236/13 P), Ge.A.P. Srl, (C-237/13 P), Rialto Inn Srl, (C-238/13 P), Bonvecchiati Srl, (C-239/13 P); other parties: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl, Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc, European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-227/13 P to C-239/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice))
   2014/C 409/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, (C-227/13 P), Hotel Gabrielli Srl, formerly Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, (C-228/13 P), GE.AL.VE. Srl, (C-229/13 P), Metropolitan SpA, formerly Metropolitan Srl, (C-230/13 P), Hotel Concordia Srl, formerly Hotel Concordia Snc, (C-231/13 P), Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), (C-232/13 P), Principessa Srl, in liquidation, (C-233/13 P), Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, (C-234/13 P), Savoia e Jolanda Srl, (C-235/13 P), Biasutti Hotels Srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc, (C-236/13 P), Ge.A.P. Srl, (C-237/13 P), Rialto Inn Srl, (C-238/13 P), Bonvecchiati Srl, (C-239/13 P) (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl, Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc, European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, Hotel Gabrielli Srl, GE.AL.VE. Srl, Metropolitan SpA, Hotel Concordia Srl, Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), Principessa Srl, Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, Savoia e Jolanda Srl, Biasutti Hotels Srl, Ge.A.P. Srl, Rialto Inn Srl and Bonvecchiati Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207 of 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-395/11: Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/35

         Action brought on 26 July 2011 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro
   (Case T-395/11)
   2011/C 282/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Republic of Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the defendant in violation of Article 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1);

               —

               Annul the negotiation procedure conducted in the framework of the tender procedure ‘Support to the Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting — Supply of equipment, Montenegro’ (reference EuropaAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP) (OJ 2010/S 178-270613), since the applicant had not been given an equal treatment and, as a result, it had not been able to correct/explain its tender;

               —

               Annul the contract award decision in the above mentioned tender procedure;

               —

               In the event the contract had already been concluded, to declare such contract null and void;

               —

               In the alternative, if the contract had already been carried out when the Court gives judgment, or the decision can no longer be declared void, declare the defendant in violation of Article 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC and order defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 172 541,56 as compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant in regard to that procedure; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Articles 2 and 30(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, as:

                           —

                           Information relevant for submitting the offer was not made available to all participants in the public procurement procedure in the same manner and quality;

                           —

                           The successful tenderer was provided information in a discriminatory manner which gave it an advantage as it was able to correct its tender; and

                           —

                           The negotiation procedure was conducted in such a way that the defendant influenced the outcome of the procedure by requesting additional information or clarifications from only certain participants, thereby violating the principle of non-discrimination and transparency.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 July 1996 in the case of Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. (1) Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and (2) Eduard Bracharz Gesellschaft mbH (Case C-87/97)

text:
No C 131 /8           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
Reference      for   a       preliminary   ruling     from   the       move to another Member State, where the person has
Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 July                  worked and become habitually resident, and finally
1996 in the case of Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio              returns to the first Member State in order to seek work, is
Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH                 it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the
   & Co KG and (2 ) Eduard Bracharz Gesellschaft mbH                   Treaty of Rome for the first Member State to impose a
                        ( Case C-87/97)                                condition of habitual residence in that State ( involving the
                                                                       existence of an appreciable period of residence in that
                          ( 97/C 131/18 )                              State ) on entitlement to a general non-contributory means
                                                                       tested state benefit with the characteristics of British
                                                                       income support ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 18 July 1996, which
was received at the Court Registry on 27 February 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Consorzio per la
Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champi               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
gnon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and ( 2 ) Eduard Bra                     Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 12 December
charz Gesellschaft mbH on the following questions:                     1996 in the case of Arif Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur
                                                                                Arbeit
— Is it compatible, in the current state of Community                                          ( Case C-91 /97 )
     law, with the principles of the free movement of goods
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /20 )
     (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) that a cheese
     which has been lawfully produced in a Member State
     since 1977 and designated by the name 'Cambozola',                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and which has been marketed in another Member                     European        Communities           by    order  of        the
     State since 1983, is not permitted to be marketed in              Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of 12 December
     the latter Member State under the name 'Cambozola',               1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     on the basis of a national measure referring to an                3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arif
     international agreement for the protection of                     Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( Federal Employment
     geographical designations of origin and names of                  Office ) on the following question:
     certain products ( which protects the designation
     ' Gorgonzola') and referring to a national prohibition            Is a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the
     of misleading statements ?                                        labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
— Does it make any difference to the answer to that                    Association Council on the development of the
     question if the packaging of the cheese designated as             Association, and is he legally employed in that State, if he
     'Cambozola' bears a clearly visible indication of the             has been permitted to work only for a limited period not
     country of manufacture ('Deutscher Weichkase'), if                exceeding three years as a speciality chef in a speciality
                                                                       restaurant ?
     that cheese is as a rule not displayed and sold to
     consumers in the form of whole cheeses, but in pieces,
     sometimes without the original packaging ?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Arbitrage
                                                                       of the Kingdom of Belgium by judgment of that court of
                                                                        19 February 1997 in the case brought by Federation Beige
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security              des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins concerning
Commissioner, by decision of 25 February 1997, in the                   annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
  case of Robin Swaddling against the Adjudication Officer                               Community of 5 April 1995
                         ( Case C-90/97 )                                                       ( Case C-93/97 )
                           ( 97/C 131/19 )                                                        ( 97/C 131 /21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour
European Communities by decision of the Social Security
 Commissioner of 25 February 1997, which was received
                                                                        d'Arbitrage ( Court of Arbitration ) of the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium of 19 February 1997, received at the Court
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Robin Swaddling against the                      Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling on the
Adjudication Officer, on the following question:
                                                                        following questions in the case brought by Federation
                                                                        Beige des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins ( Belgian
                                                                        Federation of Doctors' Associations ) concerning
 In circumstances where a person has worked and been                    annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
 habitually resident in one Member State, has then                      Community of 5 April 1995 , amending the Decree of
 exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to              12 June 1991 relating to universities in the Flemish