title: Case C-568/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 — Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry — Community aid wrongly paid — Repayment — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
   (Case C-568/11) (1)

   (Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sugar-based product consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and 35 % impurities resulting from the manufacturing process - Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 - Production refund on certain products used in the chemical industry - Community aid wrongly paid - Repayment - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2013/C 225/23
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agroferm A/S

      Defendant: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 of 27 June 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as regards granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 63) — Tariff classification for the purposes of granting the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry — Sugar-based product manufactured by fermentation with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and consisting of 65 % lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process — Classification under headings 2309, 2922 or 3824 of the Combined Nomenclature — Community aid wrongly paid

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of lysine sulphate and impurities resulting from the manufacturing process must be classified under heading 2309 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding;

               2.

               The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the national customs authorities from, first, seeking repayment of a wrongly paid amount of lysine sulphate production refunds that the producer has already received and, second, refusing to pay production refunds on that product which those authorities had given undertakings to that producer to pay.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-330/00 P: Alsace International Car Services S. à r. l. v European Parliament (Appeal — Public contracts for services — Passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles for the European Parliament in Strasbourg — Call for tenders — Compliance with national law — Rejection of a tender — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

text:
10.11.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001
                          of 21 June 2001
                                                                           in Case C-341/00 P: Conseil national des professions de
in Case C-330/00 P: Alsace International Car Services S. à                 l’automobile (CNPA) v Commission of the European
                 r. l. v European Parliament (1)                                                      Communities (1)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Appeal
(Appeal — Public contracts for services — Passenger trans-                           clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)
port by chauffeur-driven vehicles for the European Parlia-
ment in Strasbourg — Call for tenders — Compliance with
national law — Rejection of a tender — Appeal partly                                                  (2001/C 317/16)
      clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           (2001/C 317/15)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                            in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-341/00 P: Conseil national des professions de
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     l’automobile (CNPA), established in Suresnes (France), Fédér-
                    in the European Court Reports)                         ation nationale des distributeurs, loueurs et réparateurs de
                                                                           matériels de bâtiments-travaux publics et de manutention
                                                                           (DLR), established in Joinville-le-Pont (France), Auto Contrô-
In Case C-330/00 P: Alsace International Car Services S. à r. l.           le 31 SA, established in Toulouse (France), Yam 31 SARL,
(AICS), established in Strasbourg (France), represented by                 established in Toulouse, Roux SA, established in Saint-Denis-
J.-C. Fourgoux, avocat — appeal against the judgment of the                de-Saintonge (France), Marc Foucher-Creteau, residing in Paris
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                 (France), Verdier distribution SARL, established in Juvignac
Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-139/99 AICS v Parliament                 (France), represented by C. Bourgeon, avocat, — appeal against
[1998] ECR II-2849, claiming that that judgment should be                  the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
set aside and that the forms of order sought by the applicant              Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2000 in Case
at first instance should be granted, the other party to the                T-45/00 Conseil national des professions de l’automobile and Others
proceedings being the European Parliament (Agents: O. Caisou-              v Commission [2000] ECR II-2927, seeking to have that order
Rousseau and A. Neergard) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    set aside, the other party to the proceedings being Commission
composed of A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — the Court
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Advocate General: J. Mischo; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an              Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann.
order on 21 June 2001, in which it:                                        and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo; Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Registrar, has given an order on 5 July 2001, the operative
                                                                           part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    Orders Alsace International Car Services S. à r. l. (AICS) to
      pay the costs.                                                       2.    There is no need to decide on the application to intervene.
                                                                           3.    The Conseil national des professions de l’automobile (CNPA),
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                      the Fédération nationale des distributeurs, loueurs et réparateurs
                                                                                de matériels de bâtiments-travaux publics et de manutention
                                                                                (DLR), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, Yam 31 SARL, Roux SA,
                                                                                Marc Foucher-Creteau and Verdier distribution SARL are
                                                                                ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs.


title: Case F-92/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Faita v EESC (Civil service — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Grounds of a decision)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/30

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 — Faita v EESC
      (Case F-92/11) (1)

      (Civil service - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Grounds of a decision)
      (2014/C 71/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Carla Faita (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the Economic and Social Committee refusing the applicant’s request for acknowledgement that she was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and for measures to be taken in order to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, and a claim for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Faita to bear her costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear one quarter of its costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011 p. 46.


title: Case T-626/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/38

         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (DARJEELING collection de lingerie)
   (Case T-626/13)
   2014/C 45/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France)

      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 17 September 2013 given in Case R 1501/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Darjeeling collection de lingerie’ for Classes 25, 35 and 38 — the Community trade mark application No 9 468 463

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community collective trade mark registration No 4 325 718 of the word mark ‘DARJEELING’ for goods in Class 30; Community collective trade mark registration No 8 674 327 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DARJEELING’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-364/08: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon — Belgium) — Vandermeir v État belge — SPF Finances (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Motor vehicles — Use by a person residing in a Member State of a motor vehicle registered in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon — Belgium) — Vandermeir v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-364/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Article 43 EC - Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - Motor vehicles - Use by a person residing in a Member State of a motor vehicle registered in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State)
   (2009/C 19/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon
   Parties

      Applicant: Marc Vandermeir

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Première Instance d'Arlon — Interpretation of Article 43 and/or Article 49 EC — National provision of a Member State which requires a self-employed worker residing in that State to register his vehicle there which is already registered in another Member State in which he exercises his independent professional activity — Restriction on the freedom of establishment and/or to provide services
   Operative part
   Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which a self-employed worker residing in that Member State is required to register there a vehicle leased from a company established in another Member State, when it is not intended that that vehicle should be used primarily in the first Member State on a permanent basis and it is not, in fact, used in that manner.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-603/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/52

         Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission
   (Case T-603/15)
   (2016/C 048/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency
               The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
               In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality.


title: Case T-370/08: Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Csepeli Áramtermelő v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/45

         Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Csepeli Áramtermelő v Commission
   (Case T-370/08)
   (2008/C 301/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Csepeli Áramtermelő kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Máttyus, K. Ferenczi, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, T. Franchoo, and D. Fessenko, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision in so far as it identifies Csepel as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover this alleged State aid, including interest, from Csepel; and

               —

               To order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2223 final, of 4 June 2008 (Case C-41/2005 — Hungarian stranded costs), in so far as it identifies the applicant as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover the alleged State aid, including interest, from the applicant.
   The applicant claims that the Commission failed to evidence and appropriately justify its conclusion that the power purchase agreement (‘PPA’) concluded between the applicant — owner of a power generation facility in Hungary ultimately acquired by Atel AG — and the Hungarian state-owned electricity wholesaler, Magyar Villamos Muvek Rt. (‘MVM’), constitutes incompatible State aid. In support of its claims, the applicant raises the following pleas in law:
   In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 253 EC and Article 87(1) EC by failing to state reasons and by making a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's PPA conferred an economic advantage to the applicant.
   In its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant's PPA distorts competition.
   In its third plea, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in that the recovery obligation is unjustified in the specific circumstances of the case on the basis of general principles of Community law. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment regarding the methodology that it applied in order to calculate the amounts to be recovered.


title: Case C-571/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-571/08)
   (2009/C 55/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Pignataro, agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by providing for a minimum price for cigarettes and a period of 120 days within which approval is to be obtained for a change in the price of manufactured tobacco, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1).

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The minimum price
   The Commission submits that, by fixing a minimum price for cigarettes, the Italian Republic has infringed Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (and Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC (2), which it replaces and which is essentially identical to it). That provision establishes the principle that manufacturers and importers are free to determine the maximum retail selling price for manufactured tobacco. In accordance with that principle, Member States cannot justify the exercise of any discretion to fix maximum retail selling prices by reference to ‘the control of price levels’, ‘the observance of imposed prices’ or the fixing of a scale of retail selling prices in accordance with Article 9(2) of Directive 95/59/EC.
   The minimum price cannot be justified by on the grounds of protection of public health. That objective, which was taken into account by the Community legislature, can be achieved by means of increased taxation of cigarettes, in accordance with the tax parameters that are appropriate to the situation of each Member State.
   The Italian Government's argument alleging that, as a result of prices that are too high or inappropriate in terms of the market, there is a risk of increasing trafficking in contraband or counterfeit goods is also unfounded. That argument is based on mere assertions made by the Italian Government which are not substantiated by any evidence in that it has failed to explain how the difference in prices as a result of an increase in taxation should lead to a greater incidence of fraud than would be the case if a minimum price policy were adopted. The Commission maintains that it is for the individual Member State to carry out the necessary controls, within the framework of Community law, to ensure that the taxes owing to it are collected. That requirement must not in any way affect the obligation incumbent upon Member States to comply with the provisions of Directive 95/59/EC, including Article 9 thereof.
   The 120-day period within which approval is to be obtained for the prices of manufactured tobacco
   For the purpose of marketing in Italy, the prices of manufactured tobacco products must be registered for inclusion on the official list of prices. The request for registration must be sent to the Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (Finance Ministry) — Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (the autonomous body administering State monopolies) (AAMS). The AAMS does not enjoy any discretion as to whether to confirm the registration. The Commission takes the view that the effect of the excessively long period of 120 days prescribed by the Italian authorities for complying with a request to change prices is that the principle that economic operators must be free to fix maximum prices, enshrined in Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC, is, in practice, to some extent undermined.

      (1)  Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 72/464/EEC of 19 December 1972 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1972 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-95/06 P: Appeal brought on  15 February 2006  by Bausch & Lomb Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on  17 November 2005  in Case T-154/03: Biofarma SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/4

         Appeal brought on 15 February 2006 by Bausch & Lomb Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 17 November 2005 in Case T-154/03: Biofarma SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-95/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Bausch & Lomb Inc. (represented by: M. Silverleaf QC, R. Black, B. Gerber and E. Kohner, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: 1. Biofarma SA; 2. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Contested Judgment be set aside;

               —

               order the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2003 be restored;

               —

               order OHIM be directed to register the mark applied for in the name of the appellant;

               —

               order the opponent pay the costs of this appeal and of the application to the CFI.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) should be set aside on the following grounds:
   In the Judgment, the CFI held that there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public between the two marks in issue. The appellant contends that, in reaching that conclusion, the CFI erred in law and/or acted in breach of procedure. The errors relied upon are summarised below.
   The CFI erred in failing to consider either properly or at all whether the goods for which the competing marks are or are sought to be registered are similar goods. In the premises the CFI erred in law.
   The CFI ought to have considered whether the goods for which registration is sought are similar to those upon which use of the conflicting mark has been established. Had the CFI done so, it should have concluded that they are not and accordingly that there was no basis for the application of Article 8(1)(b). Alternatively, it should have concluded that there is at most a passing similarity in kind and that such slight similarity, when weighed in the overall balance in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, requires a very high degree of similarity between the conflicting marks and reasons (which were not given) why the relevant public might expect them to come from commercially related sources.
   The CFI erred in law in applying Article 8(1)(b) in its consideration of the relative similarity of the competing marks. It made its assessment not on the basis of a global assessment of the overall impression that the marks make on the eye or ear of the average consumer but on the basis of a minute dissection of the linguistic and verbal characteristics of the words forming the respective marks.
   In assessing similarity, the CFI should have considered the marks as a whole and by reference to the visual and, in particular, aural impact of the whole of the conflicting marks upon the eye and ear of the average consumer. Further the CFI failed to take into account the fact that the products in issue are ones in relation to which it is common ground that one can expect the relevant public to take significant care both in selection and use. Had the CFI applied the correct approach, it would have concluded that the two marks both sound and look different.
   The CFI failed to identify the relevant public and accordingly erred in law. The CFI erred in law in its application of Article 8(1)(b) in determining that patients form part of the relevant public. The CFI ought to have concluded in accordance with the law that the relevant public consists of medical professionals.
   In carrying out its assessment of similarity, the CFI acted in a mechanistic manner. It failed to weigh up the similarities it had found and consider whether they led to a likelihood of confusion. Instead, it assumed this was the case. Having done so, the CFI proceeded to dismiss the differences between the respective marks and goods as not removing that likelihood. This it did without explaining its reasons. Accordingly, the CFI erred in law in its application of Article 8(1)(b) as interpreted by the ECJ and/or acted in breach of procedure, in particular Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, in failing to state the grounds for its decision.
   The CFI erred in law by not considering the level of attention of the average consumer of the goods concerned, and whether this may reduce the likelihood of confusion. It should have taken account of the particularly high level of attention exhibited by the average consumer when he prepares and makes his choice between the relevant goods and the effect this may have on the likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the CFI erred in its application of Article 8(1)(b), as interpreted by the ECJ.


title: Case C-160/99: Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 226/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
References for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                  2. If the requirement to obtain authorisation constitutes a
mentsrechtbank, Roermond, by order of that court of                         barrier to the freedom to provide services enshrined in
28 April 1999 in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets against                   Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are the overriding
Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms                             reasons in the general interest relied or by the defendants
      against Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen                          (inter alia, in the letter cited above of 14 July 1998)
                                                                            sufficient in order for the barrier to be regarded as justified?
                        (Case C-157/99)
                        (1999/C 226/19)
                                                                        Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arrondissementsrecht-
bank (District Court), Roermond, of 28 April 1999, received                                      (Case C-160/99)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets v Stichting Zieken-
fonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep                                             (1999/C 226/20)
Zorgverzekeringen, on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
1.                                                                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
                                                                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                        for service in luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    (a) Must Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty be interpreted         Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        as meaning that a provision such as Article 9(4) of the
        ZFW in conjunction with Article 1 of the rules on               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
        health care abroad under the sickness assurance scheme          the Court should:
        is inconsistent with those Treaty provisions where the
        national rules cited provide that a person insured under
        the sickness assurance fund requires prior authorisation        1. declare that in making no change as regards Community
        from the sickness assurance fund in order to seek his               shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation
        entitlement to benefits from a person or establishment              (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the
        outside the Netherlands?                                            principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                            transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) to
                                                                            Article 257(1) of the Code des Douanes (Customs Code)
                                                                            of 11 May 1977, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that regulation;
    (b) What is the answer to Question 1(a) where the
        authorisation referred to therein is refused, or does not
        apply, because the relevant treatment in the other              2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
        member State is not regarded ’as normal in professional
        circles’ and thus is deemed not to constitute a benefit
        within the meaning of Article 8 of the legislation on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
        sickness assurance funds (ZFW)? Does it make any
        difference in that connection whether regard is had
        solely to the conceptions of Netherlands professional           Even though Regulation 3577/92 has direct effect, the continu-
        circles and whether national or international scientific        ance in force of Article 257(1) of the Customs Code, which
        yardsticks are applied and, if so, in what respect? Is          reserves transport between the ports of metropolitan France
        it also relevant whether the relevant treatment is              to ships flying the national flag, creates a situation of legal
        reimbursed under the social security system provided            uncertainty and ambiguity, leaving the persons concerned in
        for under the law of that other Member state?                   doubt as to whether they can invoke Community law. The
                                                                        fact that the competent authorities of the State’s regional
                                                                        administration were notified of the regulation does not
                                                                        eliminate the infringement.
    (c) What is the answer to question 1(a) where the treat-
        ment abroad is deemed to be normal and therefore to
        constitute a benefit but the requisite authorisation is         (1) OJ 1992 L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.
        refused on the ground that timely and adequate care
        can be obtained from a contracted Netherlands care
        provider and treatment abroad is therefore not neces-
        sary for the health care of the person concerned?


title: Case C-37/02 and C-38/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II

text:
20.4.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 97/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção (Fiscal Court
tungsgericht by order of 8 November 2001 in the case of                of First Instance, Lisbon, 3rd Division, 2nd Chamber) of
     Katharina Rinke against Ärtztekammer Hamburg                     27 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 4 Febru-
                                                                       ary 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recheio Cash
                                                                       & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo Nacional de
                          (Case C-25/02)
                                                                       Pessoas Colectivas on the following questions:
                          (2002/C 97/05)                               1.    Is it contrary to Community law for a Member State to
                                                                             fix a limitation period, for actions for repayment of taxes
                                                                             levied in breach of Community law, of 90 days reckoned
                                                                             from the expiry of the period for voluntary payment, so
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       that the exercise of the right to reimbursement is made
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                    excessively difficult?
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a               2.    If so, what is the minimum period that may be considered
preliminary ruling in the case of Katharina Rinke against                    compatible with the rule that exercise of that right must
Ärtztekammer Hamburg (the Hamburg Chamber of Phys-                          not be made excessively difficult?
icians) on the following questions:
                                                                       3.    What are the criteria to be used to fix that period?
1.    Does the requirement laid down in Directives
      86/457/EEC (1) and 93/16/EEC (2), to the effect that
      certain components of the specific training in general
      medical practice — completion of which confers the right
      to use the title ‘general medical practitioner’ — must be
      undertaken full-time, constitute indirect discrimination
      on grounds of sex within the meaning of Directive                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      76/207/EEC (3)?                                                  Amministrativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza
                                                                       by orders of 16 January 2002 in the case of Adriano Di
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:                              Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02) against
                                                                       Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero — Direzione
      (a)   How is the incompatibility of Directive 76/207/EEC         Generale per la Politica Commerciale e la Gestione del
            on the one hand with Directives 86/457/EEC and                           Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II
            93/16/EEC on the other to be resolved?
                                                                                (Case C-37/02 and C-38/02)
      (b) Does the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
            grounds of sex constitute a basic unwritten right
            under Community law that overrides any conflicting                                   (2002/C 97/07)
            rule in secondary legislation?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
                                                                       European Communities by orders of the Tribunale Amminis-
(2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         trativo Regionale del Veneto — Sezione Terza (Regional
                                                                       Administrative Court of the Veneto — Third Chamber) of
                                                                       16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Adriano Di Lenardo srl (C-37/02) and Dilexport srl (C-38/02)
                                                                       against Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero (Ministry of
                                                                       Foreign Trade) — Direzione Generale per la Politica Commer-
                                                                       ciale e la Gestione del Regime degli Scambi — Divisione II on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-              the following questions:
tario de 1a Instancia de Lisboa, — 3o JUIZO — 2a Secção
by order of 27 December 2001 in the case of Recheio                    (1) Are Articles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 31 of Regulation (EC)
Cash & Carry SA against Fazenda Pública and Registo                         No 896/2001 (1) incompatible, in primis, with the Treaty,
                 Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas                              in particular Article 7 (formerly Article 4) thereof, and
                                                                             with the other provisions and principles enshrined in that
                                                                             Treaty with regard to the principle of the division of
                          (Case C-30/02)                                     functions and powers between the Community institu-
                                                                             tions (in particular between the Council and the Commis-
                          (2002/C 97/06)                                     sion)?
                                                                       (2) Are those same Articles of Regulation 896/2001 contrary
                                                                             to the principle that laws should not have retrospective
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       effect and to the related principles of the protection of
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributario de                  legitimate expectations and legal certainty?
 ---pagebreak--- C 97/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
(3) Are the same provisions of Regulation 896/2001 incom-               Pleas in law and main arguments
     patible with Council Regulation EEC No 404/93 (2) of
     13 February 1993 (with subsequent amendments and
     additions), in particular with Article 20 thereof?
                                                                        Under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States must adopt the
(4) If the answer given to the preceding questions is in the            measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to them
     negative, the Court is asked to state whether, by preclu-          into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     ding persons related to traditional operators from being           prescribed for doing so. That period expired on 29 September
     granted a tariff quota even as ‘non-traditional operators’,        2000 without Portugal having brought into force the necessary
     Article 6 of the aforementioned Commission regulation,             provisions.
     in particular subparagraph (c) thereof, conflicts with the
     fundamental right to pursue a professional activity,
     viewed in relation to the freedom to conduct a business.
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
 the European Communities against Portuguese Republic                                             (Case C-45/02)
                         (Case C-44/02)                                                           (2002/C 97/09)
                         (2002/C 97/08)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                      Agent.
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       mission Directive 2000/2/EC of 14 January 2000 adapt-
     Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of                   ing to technical progress Council Directive 75/322/EEC
     the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against                 relating to the suppression of radio interference produced
     the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by                    by spark-ignition engines fitted to wheeled agricultural
     engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors              or forestry tractors and Council Directive 74/150/EEC
     and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC(1), the                        relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 forestry tractors (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed
     under Article 9 of the aforementioned Directive                          to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive
     2000/25/EC; and                                                          2000/2/EC;
—    In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the         —     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
     Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic                   the Commission immediately of such provisions, the
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     aforementioned Directive 2000/25/EC;                                     under Article 4 of Directive 2000/2/EC;
—    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                    —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2001 in Case C-59/99: Commission of the European Communities v Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a, Instituto Superior Técnico and King, Taudevin & Gregson (Holdings) Ltd (Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of advance payments made under a contract terminated by the Commission for non-performance)

text:
C 3/4                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
business use of a private car, the Kingdom of the Netherlands                Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos and N. Dafniou) —
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the               application for a declaration that, by establishing and main-
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of                taining a system for stocks of petroleum products which
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                    directly links the facility to transfer the storage obligation to
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                          refineries established in Greece to an obligation to obtain
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,                    supplies of petroleum products from those refineries, and by
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                prohibiting service stations from obtaining supplies from
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 November 2001, in                       refineries or from another Member State, the Hellenic Republic
which it:                                                                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court
1.    Declares that by providing, in breach of Articles 17(2)(a) and         (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
      18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón
      1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added              General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the version resulting from        a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it rules:
      Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending
      Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplification measures           1.    By establishing and maintaining a system for the compulsory
      with regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions                 maintenance of emergency stocks of petroleum products which
      and practical arrangements for implementing them, that an                    directly links the facility for companies which market those
      employer who is a taxable person, for the purposes of value                  products to transfer their storage obligation to refineries
      added tax may deduct part of an allowance paid to an employee                established in Greece to an obligation to obtain their supplies
      for business use of a private car, the Kingdom of the Netherlands            of those products from those refineries, the Hellenic Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;
                                                                             2.    The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 November 2001
                         of 25 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-59/99: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-398/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        ties v Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a, Instituto
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)                             Superior Técnico and King, Taudevin & Gregson (Hold-
                                                                                ings) Ltd (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                   (Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of advance payments
28 EC) — Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of                            made under a contract terminated by the Commission for
                         petroleum products)                                                           non-performance)
                              (2002/C 3/05)                                                               (2002/C 3/06)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-398/98: Commission of the European Communities                     In Case C-59/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Triantafyllou and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Hellenic                 (Agents: initially F. de Sousa Fialho and O. Couvert-Castéra,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 3/5
subsequently H. van Lier and A. Caeiros, assisted by E. Braga)              (Agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
v Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a, established in Marinha              assisted by P.G. Ferri) — application for a declaration that:
Grande (Portugal), Instituto Superior Técnico, established in
Lisbon (Portugal), represented by J.L. da Cruz Vilaga and
T. Aragão Morais, advogados, and King, Taudevin & Gregson                  —     by failing to establish one or more action programmes
(Holdings) Ltd — application by the Commission pursuant to                        having the features, and meeting the conditions, laid
Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC) for recovery                    down in Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
of an advance payment which it had granted to the defendants                      12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
under Contract No IN 90/91 PO/UK relating to activities                           against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
concerning the promotion of energy technology in Europe                           sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1),
(Thermie programme) — the Court (Third Chamber), compo-
sed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,             —     by failing to carry out fully and correctly the monitoring
                                                                                operations prescribed by Article 6 of that directive; and
has given a judgment on 13 November 2001, in which it:
1.    Orders Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a and the Instituto         —     by failing to draw up and submit a full report of the kind
      Superior Técnico jointly and severally to pay to the Commission             required by Article 10 of that directive,
      of the European Communities the sum of EUR 357 813;
2.    Orders Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a to pay to
      the Commission of the European Communities the sum of                 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      EUR 185 833,78 in interest due as at 1 January 1999 and               Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
      contractual interest from that date until full payment of the         N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
      principal sum due;                                                    President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
3.    Orders Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos Ld.a and the Instituto         L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 November 2001,
      Superior Técnico to pay the costs.
                                                                            in which it:
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by having failed:
                                                                                —     to establish action programmes within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 Decem-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  ber 1991 concerning the protection of waters against
                                                                                pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —     to carry out the monitoring operations prescribed by
                       of 8 November 2001                                               Article 6 of the said directive, and
in Case C-127/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                  —     to submit to the Commission a report of the kind required
                                                                                by Article 10 of the directive,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Inadequate implementation of Directive 91/676/EEC —
Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates                         the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under those
                    from agricultural sources)                                    provisions of Directive 91/676.
                            (2002/C 3/07)
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-127/99: Commission of the European Communities


title: Case C-484/99: Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 47/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Action brought on 14 December 1999 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                         van Beroep by decision of that court of 8 December 1999
                                Spain                                      in the case of H. Lommers against the Minister for
                                                                                Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries
                         (Case C-474/99)
                                                                                (Case C-476/99)
                          (2000/C 47/39)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/40)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice on 14 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Centrale Raad van
the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana,
                                                                           Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) of 8 December 1999,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a
in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of H. Lommers against the
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries on
                                                                           the following question:
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                           Does Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1)
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures needed to                 of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
     ensure the proper incorporation into national law of the              equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
     obligation deriving from Article 2(1) and (2) (together with          employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
     Annex II) of Directive 85/337/EEC (1), and by keeping force           conditions preclude rules of an employer under which subsi-
     legislation which, in breach of those provisions, does not            dised child-care places are available only to female employees
     enable an assessment of the environmental effects of                  save where in respect of a male employee an emergency
     certain types of project referred to in Annex II to the               situation arises as determined by his employer.
     abovementioned directive to be carried out in any part of
     the national territory, or, in the case of many other projects
     listed in the same annex, in a considerable area of national          (1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.
     territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Directive 85/337/EEC;
— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas and principal arguments                                              Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC must be interpreted in                                                 lic
the light of Article 2(1). Those provisions require the Member
States to analyse, in each specific case, the characteristics of                                     (Case C-484/99)
every project covered by Annex II. That analysis makes it
possible to determine whether, by virtue of their nature, size                                        (2000/C 47/41)
or location, an assessment of their environmental effects
should be undertaken. The second subparagraph of Article 4(2)              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
of the directive enables Member States to facilitate such                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
analyses by establishing criteria and/or thresholds. But in no             21 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
case is a Member State allowed, when transposing those                     Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal
provisions or establishing those criteria and/or thresholds,               Service, and Manuel Desantes, a civil servant on secondment
exempt in advance from analyses of that kind entire classes of             to its Legal Service under the scheme for national experts, with
projects listed in Annex II. After examining the legislation               an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
notified by the Spanish Government, the Commission has                     Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
concluded that, for the whole of Spanish territory, the                    Kirchberg.
legislation in force, whether national or of the autonomous
communities, excludes, comprehensively and definitively, the
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
obligation to subject to an assessment of environmental effects
numerous classes of projects of the kind referred to in Annex
                                                                           — declare that, by not adopting and not communicating to
II to the directive.
                                                                                the Commission within the time-limit laid down the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment              comply fully with Directive 96/9/EC of the European
    of the effects of certain public and private projects on the                Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 (1),
    environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).                                         relating to harmonisation of national provisions governing
                                                                                the legal protection of databases, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                                directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 47/25
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             (a) the amount of the entry fees, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             (b) the amount of the entry fees less the amount or value
                                                                                of the prizes given to the successful entrants, or
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex              (c) some other and if so what amount?
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   Alternatively, if those services are correctly to be regarded
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             as supplied by the organiser to each entrant in return for
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    the entry fee paid by that entrant, is the taxable amount in
the Commission. That period expired on 1 January 1998                       respect of each such supply —
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                          (a) the amount of that entry fee, or
(1) OJ No L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                           (b) the amount of that entry fee less a proportionate part
                                                                                of the amount or value of the prizes given to the
                                                                                successful entrants, or
                                                                            (c) some other and if so what amount?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                 (1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
that court of 16 December 1999, in the case of Town and                    harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turn-
County Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                        over taxes (OJ 71, 14.04.67, p. 1301 [SE SER1 67, p. 14]).
                                                                        2
                                                                       ( ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                           and Excise
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                        (Case C-498/99)                                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                         (2000/C 47/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre of 16 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Town and County
Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on
the following questions:                                               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                       Grande Instance, Grenoble, France, by judgment of that
(1) On a proper interpretation of Council Directives                   court of 15 November 1999 in the case of Procureur de la
    67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 and 77/388/EEC (2) of              République and Féderation Départementale des Chasseurs
    17 May 1977, in particular Articles 2.1 and 6.1 of the             de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-Alpes de
    latter, and having regard to the case law of the Court,            Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère (claiming
    in particular Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting                                   damages) v Xavier Tridon
    Leeuwarden (Case C-16/93) [1994] ECR I-743, is a trans-
    action which is agreed by the parties thereto to be ‘binding
    in honour only’ (and therefore unenforceable under dom-                                      (Case C-510/99)
    estic law by legal proceedings) capable of being a taxable
    transaction for the purposes of value added tax?                                              (2000/C 47/43)
(2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, then, on
    a proper interpretation of the said Directives, in particular      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Article 11A.1 of the latter, and having regard to the case         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
    law of the Court, in particular H J Glawe Spiel- und               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Grenoble, France, of
    Unterhaltungsgeräte Aufstellungsgesellschaft mbH & Co              15 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
    KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (Case                    on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    C-38/93) [1994] ECR I-1679, is the taxable amount for              Procureur de la République and Fédération Départementale
    the purposes of value added tax in respect of the services         des Chasseurs de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-
    of organising a competition supplied by the organiser to           Alpes de Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère
    entrants to the competition in return for the entry fees           (claiming damages) v Xavier Tridon, on the following ques-
    paid by the entrants —                                             tions:


title: Case T-166/13: Action brought on 20 March 2013 — Ben Ali v Council

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/45

         Action brought on 20 March 2013 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-166/13)
   2013/C 156/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               adopt a measure for the organisation of procedure under Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, in order to ensure that Commission disclose ‘all the documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

               —

               annul Decision No 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 extending the effects of Decision No 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 and Implementing Decision No 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 which caused Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen BEN ALI to be adversely affected by a series of restrictive measures consisting of the freezing of all his funds, assets and other economic resources;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage suffered by him;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 10 500 for legal expenses in support of this application in addition to those legal expenses under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure which are recoverable costs;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-301/11 Ben Ali v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 226, p. 29.


title: Case C-141/01 P: Appeal brought on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione Generale dell'Industria Italiana (Confindustria), established in Rome, Confederazione Generale Italiana del Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI (Confcommercio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), established in Rome, Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan (Italy), and Banco di Napoli SpA, established in Naples (Italy) against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the Second Chamber, Extended

text:
C 186/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
Thionville, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          2.    accordingly, declare the application admissible and send
premises of Borislav Erdeljan, 90 Route de Thionville —                     it back to the Court of First Instance for judgment (or for
Appeal against the unpublished order of the Court of First                  a stay of proceedings pending delivery of the judgment
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                     of the Court of Justice in Case C-310/99 Italy v Com-
21 May 1999 in Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 Schiocchet v                     mission);
Commission, seeking to have that order annulled and to have
the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance          3.    order the Commission to pay the full costs incurred by
granted, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission               the appellants in respect of matters adjunct to proceedings
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Wolfcarius, assisted                 before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal
by J.-L. Fagnart) — The Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                 proceedings, reserving the costs of the main proceedings.
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 16 Novem-          Pleas in law and main arguments
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      The contested order is vitiated by the following errors in law:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of Articles 111 and 114
2.    Schiocchet SARL shall pay the costs.                                  of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;
                                                                      —     infringement and misapplication of the provisions of the
                                                                            Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance with
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  regard to calculating procedural time-limits in the event
                                                                            of publication of the contested act;
                                                                      —     failure to give reasons in relation to the legal arguments
                                                                            for the application of the rules on time-limits invoked by
                                                                            the appellant;
                                                                      —     in the alternative, error of law and failure to state reasons
                                                                            with regard to the matter of excusable error.
Appeal brought on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria), estab-
lished in Rome, Confederazione Generale Italiana del
Commercio, del Turismo, dei Servizi e delle PMI
(Confcommercio), Confartigianato, Associazione Bancaria
Italiana (ABI), established in Rome, Associazione Naziona-
le fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA), established in Milan          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
(Italy), and Banco di Napoli SpA, established in Naples               of by order of that court of 1 March 2001 in the case of
(Italy) against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the              Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                  Second Chamber, Extended                                                          Krefeld
                        (Case C-141/01 P)                                                      (Case C-152/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/08)
                         (2001/C 186/07)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An appeal against the order made on 19 January 2001 by the            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Second Chamber extended Composition, of the Court of First            (Federal Finance Court) of 1 March 2001, received at the Court
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-126/00                 Registry on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
between Confederazione Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Con-         of Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
findustria) and Others and the Commission of the European             on the following questions:
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 March 2001 by Confederazione               1.    Must Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Generale dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and the other              No 1495/80 (1) of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
abovementioned companies.                                                   provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 1224/80 (2) on the valuation of goods for
                                                                            customs purposes as amended by Regulation (EEC)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 No 220/85 (3) be interpreted as meaning that payments
                                                                            of interest are distinct from the price of the goods if at
1.    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the             the material time, namely the acceptance of the customs
      European Communities of 19 January 2001;                              declaration, only the invoice for the net price of the goods


title: Case T-299/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Dedeu i Fontcuberta v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Meaning of habitual residence)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Dedeu i Fontcuberta v Commission
   (Case T-299/02) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of habitual residence)
   (2005/C 330/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Carles Dedeu i Fontcuberta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, J. Guillem Carrau, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission's implied decision, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 23 September 2002, and its express decision to that effect of 14 November 2002, which refuse to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the Commission's memorandum of 25 February 2002 and the Commission's decision of 14 November 2002 in so far as they refuse to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the daily subsistence allowance under Article 5(1) of that annex;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay the full costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-153/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/6

         Appeal brought on 30 March 2015 by Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-153/15 P)
   (2015/C 190/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, advokat, G. Pandey, Advocaat, D. Rovetta, avocat, M. Gambardella, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-6/13, Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl v Council of the European Union, and declare the action for annulment to be admissible;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits two grounds of challenge, whereby the General Court has based the contested order on manifest errors of assessment and errors in law.
   The Appellant finds that the General Court has committed manifest errors of assessment by holding first that a complete individual notification took place on 19 October 2012, and second that this notification occurred prior to the publication of a general notice of notification in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 October 2012.
   Further, the Appellant finds that the General Court committed errors in law firstly by failing to take into account the requirement that a notification must include a statement of reasons, secondly by holding that an individual notification could have the effect of shortening the time limit for a judicial challenge to a legal act of the Europrean Union, thirdly by disregarding the legal consequences of the choices made by the Council in relation to the notification procedure, and fourthly by failing to take into account the legitimate understanding of the law at the time of the Application.


title: Case C-44/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Dyson Ltd v Commission (Appeal — Directive 2010/30/EU — Indication of energy consumption by labelling and standard product information — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 — Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners — Energy efficiency — Measurement method — Limits of delegated powers — Distortion of the evidence — Duty of the General Court to state reasons)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Dyson Ltd v Commission
   (Case C-44/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Directive 2010/30/EU - Indication of energy consumption by labelling and standard product information - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 - Energy labelling of vacuum cleaners - Energy efficiency - Measurement method - Limits of delegated powers - Distortion of the evidence - Duty of the General Court to state reasons))
   (2017/C 239/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Dyson Ltd (represented by: E. Batchelor and M. Healy, Solicitors, F. Carlin, Barrister, and A. Patsa, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and E. White, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 November 2015, Dyson v Commission (T-544/13, EU:T:2015:836), in so far as it rejected the first part of the first plea in law and the third plea in law put forward at first instance;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the first part of the first plea in law and the third plea in law put forward at first instance;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case C-248/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Protection of underground water against pollution caused by hazardous substances — Directive 80/68/EEC)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-248/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Protection of underground water against pollution caused by hazardous substances - Directive 80/68/EEC)
   (2007/C 315/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43) — Operation of a landfill without formal authorisation at Ballymurtagh, County Wicklow — Pollution of groundwater in County Wexford and Killarney, County Kerry, by indirect discharges of phosphorus from septic tanks
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by having failed to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, as amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment, with regard to the municipal landfill at Ballymurtagh (County Wicklow), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 80/68, as amended by Directive 91/692;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

               Orders Ireland to pay two thirds of all the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-449/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — SLV Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LINE — Earlier national word and figurative marks Line — Partial refusal to register — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2011 — SLV Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
   (Case T-449/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LINE - Earlier national word and figurative marks Line - Partial refusal to register - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 347/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SLV Elektronik GmbH (Übach-Palenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Angel Jiménez Muñoz (Gelida, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (case R 759/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Angel Jiménez Muñoz and SLV Elektronik GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 July 2008 (case R 759/2007-4) in so far as concerns the goods ‘mains-operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’ in Class 11;

               2.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2004 in Case T-391/02, Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV, Josef Kloh v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Application for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 — Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 May 2004 (1)

   in Case T-391/02, Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV, Josef Kloh v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Application for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 - Health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 284/36)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-391/02, Bundesverband der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwertung eV, established in Bochum (Germany), Josef Kloh, resident in Eichenried (Germany), represented by R. Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers, against European Parliament (Agents: H. Duintjer Tebbens and U. Rösslein, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-P. Hix and F. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for partial annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, W. H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2004, in which it ordered:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Landwirtschaftskammer Vorarlberg and Messrs Wohlgenannt and Taferner.

               3.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of the European Parliament and the Council.

               4.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs.

               5.

               The Landwirtschaftskammer Vorarlberg and Messrs Wohlgenannt and Taferner, the parties making applications to intervene, shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.