title: Case T-333/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.) Ltd against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        29.11.2003
The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received         Pleas in law and main arguments
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers. The applicant also alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have                According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
access to certain essential technical information on the current           contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
status of the database for the CORDIS project.                             two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcon-
                                                                           tracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
                                                                           When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
                                                                           irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the                     Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
                                                                           paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
                                                                           services necessary for completion of the projects covered
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
                                                                           by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.                                                       payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
                                                                           amounts already paid to the contractor.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
                                                                           sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
                                                                           applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Com-
                                                                           mission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
                                                                           applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)                       applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
  Ltd against Commission of the European Communities                       applicant for the services provided on the basis of the principles
                                                                           of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
                                                                           and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
                         (Case T-333/03)                                   applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
                                                                           upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
                                                                           applicant for the services.
                        (2003/C 289/66)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented             Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.                         EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                             ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-334/03)
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant:
                                                                                (2003/C 289/67)
     i)     the sum of EUR 448 947,78
     ii)    interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the                               (Language of the case: German)
            amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
            2003 until the date of judgment
     iii)   compensation for material damage, loss of profits
            and non-material damage in an amount of
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
            £ 1 532 931,09;                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                  29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
     proceedings.                                                          represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.


title: Case C-669/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-669/16)
   (2017/C 063/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Norris-Usher, C. Hermes, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to designate sites for the protection of the species phocoena phocoena (harbour porpoise) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1), Annex II and Annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               declare that by its corresponding failure to contribute to the creation of a Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of the species harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of the same Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The harbour porpoise (phocoena phocoena) is an aquatic cetacean species which is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive as a species of community interest requiring the designation of specific areas of conservation. A significant population of the species within the European Union is hosted in marine waters in which the United Kingdom exercises sovereign rights.
   Pursuant to Articles 3(2) and 4(1) as well as Annexes II and III of the Habitats Directive, Member States hosting the harbour porpoise in their marine waters shall propose sites for their protection and, by so doing, contribute to the creation of the Natura 2000 network. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the proposed list of sites must be exhaustive.
   The United Kingdom has not proposed sufficient sites for the harbour porpoise.

      (1)  OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7.


title: Case T-204/12: Action brought on 15 May 2012 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/25

         Action brought on 15 May 2012 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)
   (Case T-204/12)
   2012/C 217/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viavita SASU (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 419/2011-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear the costs of the applicant; and

               —

               In the event that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins in these proceedings as an intervening party, order it to bear its own costs.

      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 word mark ‘VIAVITA’, for services in classes 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 52201504

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian trade mark registration No 154631 of the word mark ‘VILA VITA PARC’, for services in classes 39 and 42; German trade mark registration No 2097301 of the figurative mark ‘VILA VITA TOURISTIK GMBH’, for goods and services in classes 3, 35, 37, 39 et 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-402/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 10 October 2000, in the case of Mrs F. Harding against Skandia Asset Management Ltd

text:
23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 372/7
3.   In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative,          2.     May the expression ‘pre-arranged’ which appears in the
     is Article 20(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be interpreted,                directive be interpreted as referring to the moment when
     in the same circumstances, as meaning that a party that                   the contract is entered into between the agency and the
     has guaranteed payment of excise duty and has not been                    customer?
     promptly put in a position to ascertain that there has
     been no discharge from the suspension arrangement is
     entitled to furnish evidence of the correctness of the             (1) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
     operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact                package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
     occurred or where the offence was in fact committed
     even after the expiry of the four-month period following
     the date of dispatch of the products?
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom), by order of that
                                                                        court of 10 October 2000, in the case of Mrs F. Harding
                                                                                against Skandia Asset Management Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-402/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/14)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom) of 10 October 2000,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2000,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs F. Harding against
                                                                        Skandia Asset Management Ltd, on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 8a Vara Cı́vel
da Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção, by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e                     Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty directly applicable so that it
Turismo, SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves                      can be relied upon by an applicant in national proceedings to
         Garrido; intervener: Club Med Viagens Lda                      disapply such territorial limitation as is contained in sec-
                                                                        tion 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 to enable her to compare
                                                                        her pay with that of men employed by an employer associated
                                                                        with her employer at an establishment in another member
                        (Case C-400/00)                                 State who are performing equal work or work of equal value?
                        (2000/C 372/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
European Communities by order of the 8a Vara Cı́vel da                  of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção (8th Civil District of the Oporto          order of that court of 14 July 2000 in the case of
Local Court, Third Chamber), of 31 October 2000, which was              Coopsette Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 2000, for a                            Mambrini Costruzioni srl, on the other
preliminary ruling in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo,
SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; intervener:                                    (Case C-405/00)
Club Med Viagens Lda on the following questions:
                                                                                (2000/C 372/15)
1.   Does a package organised by the agency, at the request
     and on the initiative of the consumer or a strictly defined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     group of consumers in accordance with their wishes,                European Communities by order of 14 July 2000 of the Fourth
     including transport and accommodation through a tour-              Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), sitting in
     ism undertaking, at an inclusive price, for a period of            its judicial capacity, received at the Court Registry on 6 Novem-
     more than twenty-four hours or including overnight                 ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Coopsette
     accommodation, fall within the scope of the concept of             Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa Mambrini
     ‘package travel’ as defined in Article 2(1) (1)?                   Costruzioni srl, on the other, on the following questions:


title: Case T-134/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission (Application for interim measures — Financial assistance — Research and development — Recovery of advance payments made — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/13

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
   (Case T-134/12 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Financial assistance - Research and development - Recovery of advance payments made - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 184/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s measure, notified by letter of 13 January 2012, revoking several subsidies granted to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-748/16: Action brought on 22 October 2016 — QH v Parliament

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/38

         Action brought on 22 October 2016 — QH v Parliament
   (Case T-748/16)
   (2017/C 022/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: QH (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance and, as a consequence, annul the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his complaint and award the applicant compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by him;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging conflict of interests, breach of the rights of defence, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the appointment of the investigator, lack of independence and impartiality of the investigator and breach by the investigator of his mandate.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the obligation to state reasons for a decision closing an administrative investigation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to good administration and duty of care.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the grounds for moral harassment.


title: Case C-220/07: Action brought on 27 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Action brought on 27 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-220/07)
   (2007/C 211/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Schotter, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by reason of the transposition into domestic law of the provisions relating to the designation of undertakings able to guarantee the provision of universal service, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2), 12 and 13 and Annex IV of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC (1);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission in essence complains that the defendant incorrectly transposed Directive 2002/22, to the extent that French legislation provides that any operator able to ensure the provision of one of the components of the universal service over the whole of the national territory may be given the task of so doing. Such a provision disregards both the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 8(2) of the above-mentioned directive and the principles of profitability and efficiency which follow from Articles 8, 12 and 13 thereof and Annex IV thereto, since it excludes a priori economic operators which are not able to ensure provision of the universal service over the whole of the national territory. It is true that the Directive does not of itself exclude the possibility of the designation, in fine, of a single operator to cover the whole of the national territory, but, in any event, it requires that the Member States first follow an open procedure in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 8(2) of the Directive in order to ensure that any designation of a single operator is indeed the most efficient and cost-effective solution.

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).


title: Joined Cases T-211/04 and T 215/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme notified by the United Kingdom regarding the Government of Gibraltar's reform of corporate tax — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Regional selectivity — Material selectivity)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-211/04 and T 215/04) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme notified by the United Kingdom regarding the Government of Gibraltar's reform of corporate tax - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Regional selectivity - Material selectivity)
   (2009/C 44/69)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-211/04: Government of Gibraltar (represented by M. Llamas, barrister, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, and A. Petersen, lawyer, and initially by K. Nordlander and subsequently by K. Karl, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-215/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by M. Bethell and E. Jenkinson, Agents, D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, barrister, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, E. O'Neill and S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-211/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by M. Bethell, Agent, D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, barrister, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and E. O'Neill, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (OJ 2005 L 85, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T 211/04 and T 215/04 for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the Government of Gibraltar and those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Case T-215/04, and to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs as intervener in Case T-211/04;

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs as intervener in Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Action brought on 29 July 1996 by Intertronic-F. Cornelis GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-117/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 318/ 11
The applicant asks that the second paragraph of Article 215             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
of the EC Treaty be applied on the basis of the no-fault
liability to which the functioning of the institutions gave rise        The applicant, an undertaking incorporated under German
and, in the alternative, on the basis of the Community                  law which wishes to advertise by fax, contests the
authorities' liability for fault.                                       Commission 's refusal to adopt a position on its complaint
                                                                        against the Federal Republic of Germany following the
In the context of no-fault liability, it relies on the concept of       judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of
public liability for breach of the principle of equality in             Justice ) of 25 October 1 995 , which restricted advertising by
bearing public burdens, claiming that application of the                fax solely to cases in which the recipient has expressly or by
system of an ' area without frontiers' instituted by the Single         implication consented to the receipt of such
Act caused to it, as an authorized customs agent, exceptional           communications .
special and direct damage . The consequence of the abolition
of the authorized customs agent's activities was a massive              That refusal is incompatible both with the Community
reduction in the turnover of certain businesses in the sector           competition rules and with the principles governing the
and, much more seriously, the disappearance of some of                  setting-up and functioning of the internal market. In
them .                                                                  particular, the effect of the abovementioned judgment of the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof has been to strengthen the market
As regards liability for the fault of the Community's agents,           position of large undertakings in the advertising industry
the applicant maintains that, in the context of the legislative         ( the print and broadcasting media ). In addition, that
action of the Community which caused the damage , the                   judgment constitutes an obstacle to the creation of a
Community authorities disregarded the vested rights of                  homogeneous market .
customs agents and the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations .
Referring to the nature of the damage , the applicant states
that as a result of the establishment of the European Area , in
its activities as a forwarding agent which it had pursued for a         Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry
considerable length of time, it abruptly suffered two-fold                   Co . Ltd against the Council of the European Union
damage in the form of: ( a ) the practically total and definitive                               ( Case T-l 18/96 )
loss of its business as a customs agent, and ( b ) the                                            ( 96/C 318/24 )
exceptional costs of running its business when it was
 required to face up to the unexpectedness of events, above                             (Language of the case: English)
 all in the social area , but also in the technical and
 administrative areas .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry Co .
                                                                         Ltd , represented by Jean-Frangois Bellis and Richard Luff,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 Action brought on 29 July 1996 by Intertronic-F. Cornells               of A. F. Brausch, 8 rue Zithe .
 GmbH against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                         ( Case T- 11 7/96 )
                                                                         — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 648/96 of 28 March
                           ( 96/C 318/23 )
                                                                              1996 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              imports of bicycles originating in, inter alia, Thailand in
                 (Language of the case: German)                               so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              bicycles manufactured by the applicant,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                            and
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1996 by
 Intertronic-F . Cornelis GmbH, Emden ( Federal Republic of              — order      the   Council    to  bear   the   costs   of  these
 Germany ), represented by Professor Schumacher, Bremen                       proceedings .
 ( Germany ), and Wilhelm Wiltfang, Rechtsanwalt,
 Krummhorn ( Germany ).                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
                                                                         of Thailand, specializing in the production of bicycles and
 — declare that the defendant has failed, contrary to the EC              bicycle and motorcycle parts , challenges the imposition of
     Treaty, to put a stop to the implementation by the                   anti-dumping duties on its exports to the European
     enforcement authorities of the Federal Republic of                   Community .
     Germany, and by the legally established associations for
     the promotion of commercial interests , of the ban on                The applicant submits that the institutions have committed
     advertising by fax, constituting a breach of the                     two manifest errors in determining its dumping margin :
     prohibition of restraints of trade ;
                                                                          The applicant's dumping margin has been artificially
  — order the defendant to pay the costs .                                inflated, contrary to Article 2 ( 3 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Council


title: Case C-397/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Simone Gbagbo v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Appeal — Time-limit — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/19

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 January 2014 — Simone Gbagbo v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire
   (Case C-397/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Time-limit - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 175/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Simone Gbagbo (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents, European Commission, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2013, in Case T-119/11 Gbagbo v Council in which the General Court dismissed the action seeking an annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the appellant — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Simone Gbagbo is ordered to bear, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.09.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-164/10 to C-176/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuele Ferazzoli and Others v Ministero dell’Interno (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/9

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuele Ferazzoli and Others v Ministero dell’Interno
   (Joined Cases C-164/10 to C-176/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 151/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emanuele Ferazzoli (Case C-164/10), Cosima Barberio (Case C-165/10), Patrizia Banchetti (Case C-166/10), Andrea Palomba (Case C-167/10), Michele Fanelli (Case C-168/10), Sandra Castronovo (Case C-169/10), Mirko De Filippo (Case C-170/10), Andrea Sacripanti (Case C-171/10), Emiliano Orru’ (Case C-172/10), Fabrizio Cariulo (Case C-173/10), Paola Tonachella (Case C-174/10), Pietro Calogero (Case C-175/10), Danilo Spina (Case C-176/10)

      Defendant: Ministero dell'Interno

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation reserving the right to engage in the activity of collecting bets to national operators who have obtained a licence — Restrictions on opening new betting outlets for the holders of new licences — Licences withdrawn where there is cross-border organisation of games similar to those considered to be ‘public’– Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse races, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-389/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus): proceedings pending before that court brought by Sulo Rundgren (Social Security — Insurance contributions payable by pensioners who settled in a Member State before the entry into force in that State of Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Right of the State of residence to charge contributions on old-age and invalidity benefits paid by another Member State — Effect of an agreement by virtue of which the Nordic countries reciprocally waive all reimbursement of sickness and maternity benefits)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 10 May 2001                                                             of 10 May 2001
in Case C-288/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-389/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): VauDe Sport GmbH                     the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus): proceedings pending
& Co. KG, formerly vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz v                               before that court brought by Sulo Rundgren (1)
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz (1)
                                                                            (Social Security — Insurance contributions payable by
(Common customs tariffs — Tariff headings — Classifi-                       pensioners who settled in a Member State before the entry
    cation in the Combined Nomenclature — Child carrier)                    into force in that State of Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71
                                                                            and 1612/68 — Right of the State of residence to charge
                                                                            contributions on old-age and invalidity benefits paid by
                           (2001/C 200/26)                                  another Member State — Effect of an agreement by virtue
                                                                            of which the Nordic countries reciprocally waive all reim-
                                                                                bursement of sickness and maternity benefits)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/27)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
In Case C-288/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Finanzgericht, Kassel, (Finance Court for Hessen, Kassel) Ger-                                 in the European Court Reports)
many, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between VauDe Sport GmbH & Co. KG,
                                                                            In Case C-389/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
formerly vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz, and Oberfinanzdi-
                                                                            EC from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus (Rovaniemi Adminis-
rektion Koblenz — on the interpretation of the Combined
                                                                            trative Court), (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the
Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court brought by Sulo
(EC) No 1359/95 of 13 June 1995 amending Annexes I and II
                                                                            Rundgren — on the interpretation of various provisions of
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff,
                                                                            application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 802/80 (OJ 1995 L 142,
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families
p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
                                                                            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                            1983 L 230, p. 6), as last amended at the material time by
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995
judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10) and of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Commission                 for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
Regulation (EC) No 1359/95 of 13 June 1995 amending Annexes I               1968 (II), p. 475), and also on the interpretation of Articles 6
and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and             and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and              EC and 39 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 802/80 is to be interpreted in such           of: A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
a way that a product called a ‘child carrier’, which is designed for        M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
carrying a child in a seated position on an adult’s back, consists          S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
essentially of a support frame of aluminium tubing and a child’s seat       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in
of synthetic material, is assembled by being sewn together, is padded       which it has ruled:
at the sides and at head level, and fitted out with safety belts, padded
shoulder straps and a textile waist band, and which includes a pocket       1.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
for storing small items under the seat, is to be classified under tariff          the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
heading 6307.                                                                     to self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                                moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                       last amended at the material time by Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 applies to a person who,
                                                                                at the time when the Regulation entered into force in a Member
                                                                                State:
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
     —      was resident in that State but was not carrying on an                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            occupational activity and was receiving a pension there
            from another Member State in his capacity as a retired
            civil servant,                                                                              (First Chamber)
     —      while being subject in his State of residence to laws                                       of 10 May 2001
            relating to the branches of social security referred to in the
            Regulation.
                                                                             in Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communi-
     However, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 Octo-                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
     ber 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
     Community does not apply in principle to a person who has
     moved his place of residence from one Member State, in which            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
     he had ceased to be in employment, to another Member State,             Directive 92/106/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
     in which he is not employed and is not seeking employment.                                        prescribed period)
2.   The expression ‘nor is any pension payable’ in Article 28a of                                      (2001/C 200/28)
     Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
     lation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95,
     must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which neither
     a pension based on residence, such as the State pension provided                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     for by Finnish law, nor a pension based on gainful employment
     and payable under the legislation of the Member State in which
     the person concerned is resident, is actually paid to that person,
     without its being necessary to ascertain whether he might               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     hypothetically be entitled thereto.                                                         in the European Court Reports)
3.   The general principle resulting from Regulation No 1408/71,             In Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communities
     as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                     (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and S. Dragone) v Italian Republic
     amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and applied by                        (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a
     Article 33 of that Regulation, according to which a person              declaration that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
     entitled to a pension cannot, by reason of his residence in the         and quotas for combined transport operations between Mem-
     territory of a Member State, be called upon to pay compulsory           ber States, despite having converted all special authorisations
     insurance contributions to cover benefits for which an institution      into general authorisations, the Italian Republic has failed to
     of another Member State has assumed responsibility, precludes           fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/106/EEC of
     the Member State in whose territory he resides from requiring           7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
     him to pay contributions or similar payments prescribed by its          certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
     legislation to cover old-age, invalidity and unemployment               States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38), in particular Article 2 thereof
     benefits, where he is entitled to benefits having a similar             — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
     purpose, for which the institution of the Member State                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     competent in respect of pensions assumes responsibility.                Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it:
4.   The fact that the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
     Sweden have waived, under Article 36(3) of Regulation                   1.    Declares that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation                              and quotas for combined transport operations between Member
     No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and                          States and despite having converted all special authorisations
     Article 23 of the Nordic Convention on Social Security of                     into general authorisations, the Italian Republic failed in its
     15 June 1992 (106/93), all reimbursement of the costs of                      obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC
     benefits in kind provided by an institution in one of the Member              of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
     States on behalf of an institution of another Member State is                 certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
     of no consequence for the purposes of interpreting Articles 28a               States;
     and 33(2) of the said Regulation.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case T-4/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  22 March 2006  — Strack v Commission (Officials — Official informing OLAF of possible irregularities — Decision of OLAF to close the investigation — Act adversely affecting an official — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/12

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2006 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-4/05) (1)

   (Officials - Official informing OLAF of possible irregularities - Decision of OLAF to close the investigation - Act adversely affecting an official - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 121/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented by: R. Schmitt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Ladenburger and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 5 February 2004 to close the investigation number OF/2002/0356 and the final case report on which that decision was based dated 5 February 2004 and, secondly, an application to reopen that investigation and to draw up a new final case report.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-41/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 2 February 2015 — Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited v Minister for Finance

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 2 February 2015 — Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited v Minister for Finance
   (Case C-41/15)
   (2015/C 138/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas, Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited

      Defendant: Minister for Finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Second Company Law Directive (1) preclude in all circumstances, including the circumstances of this case, the making of a Direction Order pursuant to section 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act, 2010, on foot of the opinion of the Minister that it is necessary, where such an order has the effect of increasing a company's capital without the consent of the general meeting; allotting new shares without offering them on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders, without the consent of the general meeting; lowering the nominal value of the company's shares without the consent of the general meeting and, to that end, altering the company's memorandum and articles of association without the consent of the general meeting?

               2.

               Was the Direction Order made by the High Court pursuant to section 9 of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 in relation to Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc and Irish Life and Permanent plc in breach of European Union Law?

      (1)  Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent

      OJ L 26, p. 1


title: Case C-261/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/17
—     Failure to comply with statutory pro-                              b.     Order the French Republic to pay into the account ‘own
      visions                                                                   resources of the EC’ of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities a penalty payment of EUR 242 650 in
                                                                                respect of each day’s delay in implementing the measures
The Court of First Instance incorrectly held that, pursuant to                  necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-239/
Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations, on expiry of his leave               98 Commission v France;
on personal grounds, the appellant must be ‘reinstated in the
first post corresponding to his grade which falls vacant in his
category or service provided that he satisfies the requirements
                                                                         c.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
for that post’. An official who is seriously ill clearly does not
satisfy the requirements for reinstatement.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period available
                                                                         to the Member State to comply with its obligations, it is none
                                                                         the less the case that implementation of the judgment must be
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by the Commission of                      initiated immediately and be completed as quickly as possible.
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    In the present case, all the provisions and measures necessary
                                                                         for the French Republic to bring its legislation into conformity
                                                                         with the judgment of the Court should long since have been
                          (Case C-261/02)                                adopted and have entered into force; at the time of the
                                                                         Commission’s reasoned opinion, almost a year had already
                                                                         passed since the Court’s judgment. The texts communicated
                         (2002/C 202/25)                                 by the French authorities subsequent to the reply to the
                                                                         reasoned opinion still represent merely a very fragmented and
                                                                         unsatisfactory implementation of the judgment of 16 Decem-
                                                                         ber 1999.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and H. van Lier, acting as Agents,           The Commission considers that a penalty payment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               EUR 242 650 per day is appropriate, given the seriousness
                                                                         and duration of the infringement, as well as the need to apply
                                                                         an effective penalty. It calculated the amount of the penalty to
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   be proposed to the Court by using the method of calculation
the Court should:                                                        defined in its information notice of 8 January 1997 (4). It
                                                                         attributed to the seriousness of the infringement the coefficient
                                                                         10/20 and to the duration of the infringement a coefficient of
a.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        2.3. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the penalty, it
      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with           applied the factor 21.1 to the result obtained by multiplying
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the                 the uniform flat-rate amount of EUR 500 by the coefficient of
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative               seriousness and of duration.
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and with
      Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on
      the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative           ( 1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending          ( 2) OJ L 360 of 9.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         ( 3) [1999] ECR I-8935.
      Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assur-            ( 4) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.
      ance Directive) (2) and, in particular, by not transposing
      those directives with regard to mutual societies governed
      by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has
      failed to implement all the measures necessary to comply
      with the judgment of 16 December 1999 in Case C-239/
      98 Commission v France (3) and has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 228 EC;


title: Case C-404/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 16 July 2013 — R on the application of ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 16 July 2013 — R on the application of ClientEarth v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-404/13)
   2013/C 274/25
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ClientEarth

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where, under the Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) (1) (‘the Directive’), in a given zone or agglomeration conformity with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide was not achieved by the deadline of 1 January 2010 specified in annex XI of the Directive, is a Member State obliged pursuant to the Directive and/or article 4 TEU to seek postponement of the deadline in accordance with article 22 of the Directive?

               2.

               If so, in what circumstances (if any) may a Member State be relieved of that obligation?

               3.

               To what extent (if at all) are the obligations of a Member State which has failed to comply with article 13 affected by article 23 (in particular its second paragraph)?

               4.

               In the event of non-compliance with articles 13 or 22, what (if any) remedies must a national court provide as a matter of European law in order to comply with article 30 of the Directive and/or article 4 or 19 TEU?

      (1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
   OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case C-131/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen KG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 — Article 3(4) — Application of the quota system in the sugar sector — Surplus quantity of sugar found by the national authorities of a Member State during an a posteriori investigation carried out at the producer’s premises — Whether that surplus is to be taken into account when establishing the final production figures for the marketing year during which the difference came to light)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen KG v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-131/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 - Article 3(4) - Application of the quota system in the sugar sector - Surplus quantity of sugar found by the national authorities of a Member State during an a posteriori investigation carried out at the producer’s premises - Whether that surplus is to be taken into account when establishing the final production figures for the marketing year during which the difference came to light)
   2013/C 9/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 1982 L 158, p. 17) — Surplus quantity of isoglucose found subsequently by the authorities of a Member State during an inspection — Whether it is possible to take that surplus into account when establishing the final production figures for the marketing year during which the surplus came to light

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/94 of 23 February 1994, must be interpreted as not being applicable in a situation in which a surplus quantity of sugar has been found by the national authorities in the context of an a posteriori investigation carried out at the producer’s premises if the surplus quantity constitutes C sugar.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case F-63/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2008 — Arana de la Cal v Commission (Staff — Contractual agent — Late claim — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2008 — Arana de la Cal v Commission
   (Case F-63/05) (1)

   (Staff - Contractual agent - Late claim - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/113)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Miriam Arana de la Cal (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant, a former member of the auxiliary staff, against the decision fixing her grade and remuneration as a contract staff member and, secondly, an application for damages (formerly T-271/05)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 31 (case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-271/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-344/07 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 — Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark FOCUS )

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/16

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 — Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant GmbH
   (Case C-344/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ‘FOCUS’)
   (2008/C 209/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH (represented by: M. Herrmann and B. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent), Merant GmbH (represented by: A. Schultz, Rechtsanwält)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v OHIM, by which the Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-551/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Temporal and material scope — Civil and commercial matters — Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt — Included — Concept of ‘court’ — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola -Croatia) — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn
   (Case C-551/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Temporal and material scope - Civil and commercial matters - Enforcement proceedings relating to the recovery of an unpaid public parking debt - Included - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’))
   (2017/C 144/11)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

      Defendant: Sven Klaus Tederahn

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.

               2.

               Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-556/15: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/24

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-556/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 200/35)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case T-91/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Flying Holding and Others v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/20

         Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Flying Holding and Others v Commission
   (Case T-91/12)
   2012/C 126/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Flying Holding NV (Antwerpen-Wilrijk, Belgium); Flying Group Lux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and Flying Service NV (Antwerpen-Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: C. Doutrelepont and V. Chapoulaud, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the European Commission of 15 December 2011 and 17 January 2012;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting their application to participate in a restricted invitation-to-tender procedure concerning the provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service. (1)

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state or failure sufficiently to state reasons, in so far as, in its second decision of 17 January 2012, the Commission failed either to examine or respond to the evidence sent to it by the applicants after the decision of 15 December 2011.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Commission relied on information that it obtained from the Luxembourg authorities although that information had not been communicated to the applicants before the decision of 15 December 2011 was adopted.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, since, in the first decision, the Commission used documents without seeking the applicants’ point of view on them and, by the second decision, upheld the first decision without responding to the new evidence provided by the applicants after the first decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in so far as the Commission failed to adopt the least restrictive measure for the applicants by preventing them from participating in the restricted procedure for the award of a framework contract on the ground that information provided in relation to the Luxembourg company Flying Group was not accurate, sincere and complete, even though relevant information with a direct connection with the object of the contract was provided in due time.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 89 of the Financial Regulation (2) and Article 135 of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (3) in so far as the European Commission required the applicants to provide it with information about their Luxembourg company with no direct connection with the object of the contract, which relates only to air transport departing from Brussels.

      (1)  OJ 2011/S 192-312059.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: Case C-276/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 26 June 2006 — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Verviers (Belgium) lodged on 26 June 2006 — Mamate El Youssfi v Office National des Pensions
   (Case C-276/06)
   (2006/C 224/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal du travail de Verviers
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mamate El Youssfi

      Defendant: Office National des Pensions
   Question referred
   Is a refusal to grant statutory Guaranteed Income to Elderly Persons on the ground that:

               —

               (a) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of the European Communities of 14 June 1971 does not apply to the applicant (1);

               —

               (b) the applicant is not a recognised stateless person or a refugee;

               —

               (c) the applicant is not a national of a country with which Belgium has concluded a reciprocal convention on guaranteed income or in relation to which it has recognised that de facto reciprocity exists; or that

               —

               (d) the applicant is not entitled to any retirement or survivor's pension under a Belgian scheme,

         the result of:

               —

               (1) too restrictive an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of 29 April 2004 (2) (replacing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971), in particular in the light of Article 14 of the ECHR, Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto and Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 (3);
               or, if that is not the case,

               —

               (2) an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that is incompatible with the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1) (4), as supplemented by the EC-Morocco Agreement of 26 February 1996 (OJ L 70 of 18 March 2000)?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1).


title: Case C-189/09: Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/33

         Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-189/09)
   2009/C 180/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and B. Schöfer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, (1) or by failing to notify the commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on the 15 September 2007. At the time the present action was lodged, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary measures for the implementation of this directive, or had in any case not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 54.


title: Case T-383/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2015 — Europower v Commission (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2015 — Europower v Commission
   (Case T-383/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 155/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Europower SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cocco and L. Salomoni, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti, L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in essence, for suspension of operation of the decision of 3 April 2014 in which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by Europower in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine on the Ispra (Italy) site of its Joint Research Centre (JRC) (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) and awarded the contract to CPL Concordia, and consequently all other subsequent decisions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-207/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 May 2011 — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Cremona

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 May 2011 — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Cremona
   (Case C-207/11)
   2011/C 211/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: 3D I srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Cremona

      Question referred

   Where the legislation of a Member State — such as the Italian legislation laid down in Article 2(2) of Legislative Decree No 544 of 30 December 1992 — provides that, in consequence of a transfer or exchange of shares, the transferring company is to be taxed on the capital gains arising from the transfer and the capital gain is to be deemed to correspond to the difference between the initial cost of acquiring the shares or holdings transferred and their current market value, unless the transferring company carries over in its own balance sheet a special reserve fund equivalent to the capital gains arising upon the transfer, is that legislation, in the circumstances of the case covered by the present proceedings, incompatible with Articles 2, 4 and 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States?

      (1)  OJ L 225, p. 1.


title: Case T-419/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/27

         Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH)
   (Case T-419/07)
   (2008/C 8/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 September 2007 in Case R 766/2007-2, notified on 18 September 2007, and dismiss the application for partial revocation of 16 December 2006 of Community trade mark No 915 058 for the reasons stated in the appeal of 16 May 2007;

               —

               Alternatively, refer the case back for decision on the appeal of 16 May 2007 to the Cancellation Division;

               —

               Order the defendant or the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the reimbursable costs, including the costs of the main proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘OKATECH’ for goods and services in classes 6, 19 and 42 (Community trade mark No 915 058).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Okalux GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Messe Düssseldorf GmbH

      Decisions of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of the invalidity of the trade mark concerned for services in class 42; revocation of that decision with regard to the costs.

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

      Pleas in law: In particular, infringement of Article 57 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and violation of the right to be heard.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-137/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten) — Amy Rockler v Försäkringskassan, formerly Riksförsäkringsverket (Freedom of movement for workers — Officials and servants of the European Communities — Parental benefits — Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten) — Amy Rockler v Försäkringskassan, formerly Riksförsäkringsverket
   (Case C-137/04) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Officials and servants of the European Communities - Parental benefits - Taking into account of the period of affiliation to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities)
   (2006/C 131/17)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amy Rockler

      Defendant: Försäkringskassan, formerly Riksförsäkringsverket
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regeringsrätten — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Right to parental benefit (‘föräldrapenning’) — No account taken of period of cover by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme provided for by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities
   Operative part of the judgment

      Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings applies, the period during which a worker was affiliated to the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities must be taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-484/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time — Article 17(1) — Derogation — Articles 3 and 5 — Right to minimum daily and weekly rest periods)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-484/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Directive 93/104/EC - Organisation of working time - Article 17(1) - Derogation - Articles 3 and 5 - Right to minimum daily and weekly rest periods)
   (2006/C 261/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell and E. O'Neill, Agents, and K. Smith, Barrister)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 17(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — Scope of the derogation — Implementation of provisions relating to rest periods
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying the derogation provided for in Article 17(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, to workers whose working time is partially not measured or predetermined or can be determined partially by the worker himself and by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the rights of workers to daily and weekly rest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17(1), 3 and 5 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5. 2. 2005.