title: Case C-35/03: Action brought on 31 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
22.3.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 70/13
Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-                          ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its               which had supplied gratuitous services?
obligations under the contract.
                                                                          3.    Can Council Directive 89/665/EEC ( 5) of 21 December
                                                                                1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts, and in particular Articles 2(1)(a)
                                                                                and 5 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a con-
                                                                                tracting authority may exclude, up to the end of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,                       process of evaluation of the tenders, from participation in
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of                           the procedure or submission of a tender, an undertaking
27 December 2002 in the case of La Société Anonyme                              connected to any person who has been responsible for
                 Fabricom against l’Etat Belge                                  research, testing, study or development in respect of the
                                                                                works, supplies or services, although when questioned in
                                                                                that regard by the contracting authority that undertaking
                          (Case C-34/03)                                        declares that it has gained therefrom no unfair advantage
                                                                                of a nature such as to distort the normal conditions of
                                                                                competition?
                         (2003/C 70/21)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (3 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 54.
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,                   (4 ) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
                                                                          (5 ) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 29 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La
Société Anonyme Fabricom against l’Etat Belge (the Belgian
State) on the following questions:
1.    Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
      to the coordination of procedures for the award of public           Action brought on 31 January 2003 by the Commission
      service contracts (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,              of the European Communities against Ireland
      Council Directive 93/36/EC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2),
      and in particular Article 5(7) thereof, Council Directive                                     (Case C-35/03)
      93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
      of procedures for the award of public works contracts (3),                                   (2003/C 70/22)
      in particular Article 6(6) thereof, and Directive 97/52/EC
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/
      36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning procedures for the
      award of public service contracts, public supply contracts          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      and public works contracts ( 4), in particular Articles 2(1(b)      Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2003 by
      and 3(1)(b) thereof, in conjunction with the principle of           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
      proportionality, freedom of trade and industry and                  by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular            Luxembourg.
      by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention
      for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person              a)    find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                  Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      development in respect of those works, supplies or                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      services where that person has not been given an                          Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concern-
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the                    ing the framework agreement on fixed-term work con-
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort                    cluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP ( 1), or by failing to
      competition?                                                              ensure that management and labour have introduced the
                                                                                necessary measures by agreement, and/or by failing to
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if                inform the Commission thereof;
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-           b)    condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        3.    order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period          Pleas and main arguments
expired on 10 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to          —     Incorrect, overly broad interpretation of the absolute
in the conclusions of the Commission.                                        ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b) of Council
                                                                             Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark:
                                                                             from the point of view of the average consumer, the
( 1) OJ L 175, 10.07.1999, p. 43.                                            mark applied for serves to identify the goods and services
                                                                             in respect of which registration is sought as originating
                                                                             from the appellant and, accordingly, to distinguish those
                                                                             goods and services from those of other undertakings.
                                                                             Considered as a whole, the sign consisting of a word
                                                                             element and additional graphic elements undoubtedly
                                                                             performs the function of providing a guarantee that all
                                                                             the goods or services bearing it have originated under the
                                                                             control of a single undertaking which is responsible for
                                                                             their quality.
Appeal brought on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in
                                                                       —     Had the Court of First Instance correctly interpreted the
judicial liquidation, against the judgment delivered on
                                                                             absolute ground for refusal set out in Article 7(1)(b), it
5 December 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                             would have had to examine the further plea alleging
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                             infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and to reach the con-
T-91/01 between BioID AG, in judicial liquidation, and                       clusion, on the basis of its findings of fact, that the mark
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             applied for was also not caught by the absolute ground
                   (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             for refusal set out therein which applies where the signs
                                                                             or indications of which a mark consists are of an
                                                                             exclusively descriptive nature. In that regard, the Court of
                        (Case C-37/03 P)                                     Justice may, since the state of the proceedings so permits,
                                                                             give final judgment as provided by Article 54 of the
                                                                             Statute of the Court.
                         (2003/C 70/23)
                                                                       (1 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                            Communities.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 December
2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-91/01 between BioID
AG, in judicial liquidation, and the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, in judicial liquidation,
represented by Dr Axel Nordemann, Rechtsanwalt, Boehmert               Action brought on 3 February 2003 by the Commission
& Boehmert, Meinekestr. 26, D-10719 Berlin, with an address            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
for service in Luxembourg.                                                                          Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-38/03)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/24)
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01 BioID AG v Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) ( 1);
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
2.    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade           on 3 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 in Appeal                 Communities, represented by L. Ström F. Simonetti, acting as
      R 538/1999-2;                                                    Agents.


title: Case C-91/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 — Scope — Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment — Prohibition — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU — Posting of workers — Nationals of non-Member States — Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Essent Energie Productie BV v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-91/13) (1)

   ((EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 - Scope - Introduction of new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the conditions for access to employment - Prohibition - Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Nationals of non-Member States - Requirement for a work permit for the deployment of labour))
   2014/C 409/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Essent Energie Productie BV

      Respondent: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where workers who are nationals of non-member countries are made available by an undertaking established in another Member State to a user undertaking established in the first Member State, which uses them to carry out work on behalf of another undertaking established in the same Member State, such making available is subject to the condition that those workers have been issued with work permits.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-61/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/21

         Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)
   (Case T-61/09)
   2009/C 102/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, 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: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH (Bösingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Schinken King’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30 (Application No. 3 720 968)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community word mark ‘Curry King’ (Community trade mark No 2 885 077) for goods in Class 30 and the German word marks ‘Curry King’ (No 399 02 969,9) and ‘King’ (No 304 04 434,2) for goods in Classes 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) because there is a likelihood or confusion or at least a likelihood of association between the marks at issue and of Article 74(1) on the ground of inadequate reasoning of the decision.

      (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-454/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2006 — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/41

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2006 — pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH v 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability
   (Case C-454/06)
   (2006/C 326/86)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesvergabeamt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: pressetext Nachrichtenagentur GmbH

      Respondents: 1. Republic of Austria (Bund), 2. APA-OTS Originaltext-Service GmbH, 3. APA AUSTRIA PRESSE AGENTUR, a registered cooperative with limited liability
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which a contracting authority intends to obtain services in the future from a service provider established as a limited liability company where those services were previously supplied by a different service provider who is the sole shareholder in the future service provider and has control of the future service provider? In such a case is it legally relevant that the contracting authority has no guarantee that throughout the entire period of the original contract the shares in the future service provider will not be disposed of in whole or in part to third parties and moreover has no guarantee that the membership of the original service provider, which is in the form of a co-operative society, will remain unchanged throughout the entire contract period?

               2.

               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which, during the period of validity of a contract concluded for an indefinite period with certain service providers for the joint provision of services, a contracting authority agrees with those service providers amendments to the charges for specified services under the contract and reformulates an index-linking clause, where these amendments result in different charges and are made upon the changeover to the euro?

               3.

               Are the terms ‘awarding’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/50/EEC and ‘awarded’ in Articles 8 and 9 of that directive to be interpreted as encompassing circumstances in which, during the period of validity of a contract concluded for an indefinite period with certain service providers for the joint provision of services, a contracting authority agrees with those service providers to amend the contract, first, renewing for a period of three years a waiver of the right to terminate the contract by notice, the waiver no longer being in force at the time of the amendment, and second, also laying down a higher rebate than before for certain volume-related charges within a specified area of supply?

               4.

                  If the answer to any of the first three questions is that there is an award:
               Is Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC, or are any other provisions of Community law, such as, in particular, the principle of transparency, to be interpreted as permitting a contracting authority to obtain services by awarding a single contract in a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, where parts of the services are covered by exclusive rights as referred to in Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC? Or do the principle of transparency or any other provisions of Community law require in the case of an award of mostly non-priority services that a contract notice is none the less published prior to the contract award, to enable undertakings in the sectors concerned to assess whether services are in fact being awarded that are subject to an exclusive right? Or do the provisions of Community law relating to the award of public contracts require that in such a case services can only be awarded in separate tender procedures, according to whether they are or are not subject to exclusive rights, in order to allow at least competitive tendering as to part?

               5.

                  If the answer to the fourth question is to the effect that a contracting authority may award services which are not subject to exclusive rights in a single procurement procedure together with services which are subject to an exclusive right:
               Can an undertaking which does not have any right to deal with data that is subject to an exclusive right possessed by an undertaking which has a dominant position in the market establish that in that respect it has the capacity, for the purposes of procurement law, to provide a comprehensive service to a contracting authority, by relying on Article 82 EC and an obligation derived from that provision on the market-dominant undertaking which has the power of disposal over the data and is established in a Member State to provide the data on reasonable conditions?

               6.

               If the answer to the first, second and third questions is to the effect that the partial contract transfer in 2000 and/or one or both of the contract amendments referred to constituted new awards; and furthermore should the fourth question be answered to the effect that either when awarding a contract for services not subject to exclusive rights by means of a separate award procedure, or when awarding a combined contract (in the present case for press releases, the basic service and rights to use APADok), a contracting authority should have first published a contract notice to ensure that the intended contract award was transparent and capable of being reviewed:
               Is ‘harmed’ in Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665/EEC (2) and in Article 2(1)(c) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking in a case such as the present one is harmed, within the meaning of those provisions of Directive 89/665/EEC, simply where he has been deprived of the opportunity to participate in a procurement procedure because the contracting authority did not, prior to making the award, publish a contract notice, on the basis of which the undertaking could have tendered for the contract to be awarded, could have submitted an offer or could have had the claim that exclusive rights were involved reviewed by the competent procurement review body?

               7.

               Are the Community law principle of equivalence and the Community law requirement for effective legal protection, or the principle of effectiveness, to be interpreted, having regard to any other relevant provisions of Community law, as conferring an individual and unconditional right on an undertaking against a Member State such that it has at least six months from the time when it could have known that a contract award infringed procurement law to bring legal proceedings before the competent national authority to seek damages following the contract award on account of an infringement of Community procurement law, while it must be allowed additional time for periods when it could not make such a claim owing to the absence of a statutory basis in national law, in circumstances where under national law claims for damages based on infringements of national law are normally subject to a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge of the wrongdoer and of the damage and, in the absence of legal protection in a particular area of law, the limitation period does not (continue to) run?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.


title: Case T-419/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — LATGA-A v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — LATGA-A v Commission
   (Case T-419/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A) (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-315/10: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal)) — Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, CSN Cayman Ltd v Unifer Steel SL, BNP Paribas (Suisse), Colepccl (Portugal) SA, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal)) — Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional, CSN Cayman Ltd v Unifer Steel SL, BNP Paribas (Suisse), Colepccl (Portugal) SA, Banco Português de Investimento SA (BPI)
   (Case C-315/10) (1)

   2011/C 89/27
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-96/14: Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/52

         Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)
   (Case T-96/14)
   2014/C 135/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Macdonald, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIMEO’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 843 061

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘meo’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-23/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/44

         Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-23/14)
   2014/C 112/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mark Bos (Ankara, Turkey); Estelle Kadouch (Jerusalem, Israel); Siegfried Krahl (Lago Sul, Brazil); and Eric Lunel (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: F. Krenc)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               accordingly, annul Regulation No 10223/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in so far as it amends Annex X thereto (Art.1, No 70);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants — contractual agents and officials in European Union delegations — rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment, Articles 20, 21 and 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union introduces dramatic and savage cuts to the right to annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country. The applicants claim that the contested regulation does not take into account the specific situation of those officials and servants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (‘the ECHR’) and Articles 7 and 31(2) of the Charter, in so far as the reform of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants does not respect the applicants’ private and family life, since their right to annual leave has been cut by almost one half, and that reduction unduly obstructs their private and family life.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the advantages related to serving in a third country — which led to the choice of the applicants — have suddenly disappeared with the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR on account of the lack of information, consultation and cooperation during the procedure which led to the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of sound legislation and, in particular, the duty of thoroughness and the duty to state reasons, both on account of the lack of information and proper consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee and the unions during the procedure which led to the reform of Annex X to the Staff Rules and by the failure to state the reasons for the decisions relating to that annex.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-64/97)

text:
No C 142/28              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                             Action brought on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen
                                                                         against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-63/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/60 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').                                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen, of
                                                                         Wanssum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                         Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                         of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Pleijers against the Council of the European Union and                   Guillaume .
            the Commission of the European Communities
                            ( Case T-60/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                              ( 97/C 142/59 )
                                                                         ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                               applicant the sum of F1 419 246 , together with interest
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full;
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                               think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 86 531
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg
 Pleijers, of Wittem ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.                     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
                                                                               thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
 van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                               1992 until the date of the payment in full ;
 Guillaume .
                                                                          ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                          Case T-50/97 (').
         applicant the sum of Fl 35 953 , together with interest
         thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
         1992 until the date of payment in full;                          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
         in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
         applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 20 595
         ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           Action brought on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder
         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          against the Council of the European Union and the
         thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May                            Commission of the European Communities
         1992 until the date of the payment in full ;                                                ( Case T-64/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/61 )
   ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities was
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
   Case T-50/97 0 ).                                                       Communities on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder, of
                                                                           Haarzuilens ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
   (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                           Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                           of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume .
 ---pagebreak---  10 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/29
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant the sum of F1 386 439 , together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of payment in full;                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case T- 50197 (>).
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall            O Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      think fit, amounting to not less than F1 39 954
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;
                                                                     Action brought on 13 March 1997 by J. T. F. J. Op 't
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                         Veld against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( Case T-66/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/63
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
O Page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 13 March 1997 by J. T. F. J. Op 't Veld,
                                                                     of Vlodrop (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Action brought on 13 March 1997 by T. H. P. Neelen                   Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
against the Council of the European Union and the                    of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
           Commission of the European Communities                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                     Guillaume .
                          Case T-65/97
                          ( 97/C 142/62 )
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                     applicant the sum of Fl 280 097, together with interest
the Commission of the European Communities was                              thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  1992 until the date of payment in full;
Communities on 13 March 1997 by T. H. P. Neelen, of
Nunhem ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                    applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                            think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 116 957
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                         ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Guillaume .
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
                                                                            thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1992 until the date of the payment in full ;
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                   ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
      applicant the sum of Fl 323 980, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of payment in full;                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall            Case T-50/97 ( 1 ).
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 133 491
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of         (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full;


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-35/00: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)

text:
C 84/20                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
the national legislation, even where a directive on the mutual              1.    Declares that, by not drawing up waste management plans
recognition of diplomas has been adopted for the profession concerned,            covering the whole of its territory and complying with all the
but where application of that directive does not result in automatic              provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
recognition of the applicant’s qualification or qualifications.                   on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                                18 March 1991, of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and of Directive
                                                                                94/62/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, and/or
                                                                                by not informing the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
                                                                                by Directive 91/156, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and,
                                                                                leaving aside Gibraltar, under Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
                                                                            2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Ireland to pay the costs.
                         (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                          24 January 2002
in Case C-35/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                              Ireland (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC,
  91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 84/31)                                                             15 January 2002
                    (Language of the case: English)                         in Case C-43/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Vestre Landsret): Andersen og Jensen ApS v
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Com-
                                                                            mon system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
                                                                            transfers of assets and exchanges of shares — Transfer of
In Case C-35/00, Commission of the European Communities                               assets or of a branch of activity — Meaning)
(agents: R. B. Wainwright and L. Ström) v United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent: R. Magrill, assisted
                                                                                (2002/C 84/32)
by D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by not
drawing up waste management plans complying with all the
provisions concerning waste of Council Directive 75/442/EEC                                     (Language of the case: Danish)
of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended
by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32), of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and of                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), and/or by not informing the Commission
thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                   In Case C-43/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of             by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Article 6                 the proceedings pending before that court between Andersen
of Directive 91/689 and Article 14 of Directive 94/62, the                  og Jensen ApS and Skatteministeriet on the interpretation of
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President                 Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                   1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to
Judges, Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has              mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it:                           concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: Case C-205/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat — Austria) — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten v Kärntner Landesregierung (Reference for a preliminary hearing — Article 234 EC — Concept of national court or tribunal — Admissibility — Directive 85/337/EEC — Environmental impact assessment — Construction of overhead electrical power lines — Length of more than 15 km — Transboundary constructions — Transboundary power line — Total length exceeding the threshold — Line mainly situated in the territory of a neighbouring Member State — Length of national section below the threshold)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Umweltsenat — Austria) — Umweltanwalt von Kärnten v Kärntner Landesregierung
   (Case C-205/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary hearing - Article 234 EC - Concept of ‘national court or tribunal’ - Admissibility - Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Construction of overhead electrical power lines - Length of more than 15 km - Transboundary constructions - Transboundary power line - Total length exceeding the threshold - Line mainly situated in the territory of a neighbouring Member State - Length of national section below the threshold)
   2010/C 24/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Umweltanwalt von Kärnten

      Defendant: Kärntner Landesregierung

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Umweltsenat (Austria) — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Requirement for an environment impact assessment for constructions of overhead electrical power lines of a length of more than 15 km — Length to be taken into account in the case of trans-frontier constructions — Scheme for an electrical power line with a total length exceeding the threshold but with only a section of 7.4 km on national territory, the remainder being situated on the territory of the neighbouring Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, are to be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of a Member State must make a project referred to in point 20 of Annex I to the Directive, such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure even where the project is transboundary in nature and less than 15 km of it is situated on the territory of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-385/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreas-                      —     Breach of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations by using the
en against the Commission of the European Communities                           applicant’s transfer as a punitive measure, and
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations through the
                        (Case T-385/02)                                         adoption of a disproportionate and unnecessary measure,
                                                                                resulting in the applicant’s appointment to a post that is
                                                                                not suited to her category and grade.
                        (2003/C 44/75)
                  (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                Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Marta                         GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against
Andreasen, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Ian S. Forrester,                   the Commission of the European Communities
QC.
                                                                                (Case T-388/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 44/76)
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her removal from the post                               (Language of the case: German)
      of Accounting Officer
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her transfer to the post of
      Principal Adviser                                                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengra-
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           be, Germany, represented by R. Nierer, Rechtsanwalt.
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 (State
                                                                                Aid No N 240/2002) not to raise any objection to the
                                                                                Federal Republic of Germany granting State aid to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Zellstoff Stendal GmbH;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The purpose of the present action is to challenge the Decision
to remove the applicant from office as Accounting Officer and
Bugdet Execution Director in Directorate General Budget and
to transfer her to the position of principal Adviser in Director-
ate General Personnel and Administration.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits:                     The applicants produce timber-based materials from freshly
                                                                          felled pine, including [...] oriented structural boards. Their
                                                                          action is brought against the Commission’s decision to raise
—     Breach of the principle of good administration. Failure to          no objection to the granting of a non-repayable subsidy
      state reasons for the removal in question, and violation            of EUR 109,161 million and an investment allowance of
      of the Commission’s duty of adequate reasoning for                  EUR 165,515 million to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the
      adoption of a decision having legal effect.                         construction of a cellulose factory and the establishment of a


title: Case T-554/14: Action brought on 25 July 2014  — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/24

         Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)
   (Case T-554/14)
   2014/C 339/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2014 in Case R 1553/2013-1, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding Opposition No B 1 9 38  458 and rejecting in part Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154‘MESSI’ (figurative);

               —

               order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘MESSI’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘MASSI’ for goods in classes 9, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 2002 In Joined Cases C-388/00 and C-429/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Radiosistemi Srl v Prefetto di Genova (Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Compatibility of national legislation prohibiting the marketing of radio apparatus which does not bear the national type-approval stamp — Whether penalties provided for by the national legislation are precluded)

text:
10.8.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 191/7
      Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Taxes) of 27 April                 L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      1993, as amended by Paragraph 4(5) of the Umsatzsteuerge-              judgment on 20 June 2002, in which it has ruled:
      setz-Änderungsgesetz of 12 December 1996, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                 1.   Article 28 EC precludes legislation and national administrative
      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  practice which — in the context of a system where matters
      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                  concerning conformity assessment procedures for the purposes
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment;                                     of placing radio equipment on the market and putting such
                                                                                equipment into service have been delegated to the administrative
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    authorities, to be decided at their discretion — prevents
                                                                                economic operators from importing, marketing or holding in
                                                                                stock, with a view to selling, radio equipment that has not
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                        undergone national type-approval, and which does not admit
                                                                                other forms of evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to
                                                                                obtain, to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
                                                                                requirements concerning the proper use of the radio frequencies
                                                                                authorised under national law.
                                                                             2.   The provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1),
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the
                                                                                European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                         radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment
                                                                                and the mutual recognition of their conformity confer on
                                                                                individuals rights which may be relied upon before national
                           of 20 June 2002
                                                                                courts even though the Directive itself has not been formally
                                                                                implemented in national law within the period prescribed.
In Joined Cases C-388/00 and C-429/00 (Reference for a                            Article 7(2) of the Directive does not allow for the maintenance
preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova):                           in force of legislation or administrative practice which, after
           Radiosistemi Srl v Prefetto di Genova (1)                              8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing or the putting into
                                                                                service of radio equipment which does not bear the national
(Directive 1999/5/EC — Radio equipment and telecommuni-                           type-approval stamp, where it has been confirmed that such
cations terminal equipment — Compatibility of national                            equipment makes efficient and proper use of the radio frequencies
legislation prohibiting the marketing of radio apparatus                          authorised under national law, or where it is easy to verify that
which does not bear the national type-approval stamp —                            this is the case.
Whether penalties provided for by the national legislation
                             are precluded)                                  3.   The term ‘measure’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                           (2002/C 191/11)                                        Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the
                                                                                exchange of information on national measures derogating from
                                                                                the principle of the free movement of goods within the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                              Community includes any measures, other than judicial decisions,
                                                                                taken by a Member State having the effect of restricting the free
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            movement of goods lawfully produced or marketed in another
                    in the European Court Reports)                                Member State. Where the administrative authorities, having
                                                                                seized a particular model or a particular type of product which
                                                                                is lawfully marketed in another Member State, continue to
                                                                                withhold that model or product after a check has been carried
In Joined Cases C-388/00 and C-429/00: Reference to the                           out by the public authorities responsible for technical checks to
Court under Article 234 EC by the Giudice di pace di Genoa                        ascertain that the product in question is in conformity with both
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                       national and Community legislation, that is a ‘measure’ which
before that court between Radiosistemi Srl and Prefetto di                        must be notified to the Commission within the meaning of that
Genova, on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, of Directive                      provision.
1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications
terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their                       4.   Where national provisions have been recognised as being
conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10), and of Decision No 3052/                        contrary to Community law, the imposition of fines or other
95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                            coercive measures for infringements of those provisions is also
13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange                        incompatible with Community law.
of information on national measures derogating from the
principle of the free movement of goods within the Com-
munity (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colne-
ric, J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of 10 October 1996 in the case of Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly against Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin (Case C-336/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96              EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370 / 5
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Concerning freedom of movement for workers and the tax
                                                                         status of Franco-German frontier workers
The period within which the Member States were to
comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on
21 March 1994 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic                   — Whether the principle of freedom of movement for
Republic has still not complied with the Directive .                         workers, as embodied in the Treaty of Rome and the
                                                                             implementing legislation, is contravened by a tax
f 1 ) OJ No L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992, p . 1 .                                   regime, applicable to frontier workers, of the kind
                                                                             provided for by the Franco-German Convention, in so
                                                                             far as the latter lays down taxation arrangements which
                                                                             are different for people whose remuneration is paid by a
                                                                             public entity as compared with those whose
                                                                             remuneration is paid by private persons and as a result
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  is liable to have an impact on access to posts in the
Verwaltungsgericht, Diisseldorf, by order of that court of                   public or private sectors depending on residence in one
24 September 1996 in the administrative proceedings                          State or another,
between Stadt Dormagen and Bezirksregierung Diisseldorf,
                   joined party: Klaus Mackel
                           ( Case C-334/96 )                             — Whether a rule under which a frontier worker receiving
                             ( 96/C 370/11 )                                 remuneration from a State or an agency thereof
                                                                             governed by public law is taxable in that State,
                                                                             whereas, if the frontier worker has the nationality of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       other State but is not at the same time a national of the
European Communities by an order of the First Chamber of                     first State, his remuneration is taxable in the State
the Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative Court), Diisseldorf,                 where the frontier worker resides is compatible with the
of 24 September 1996, which was received at the Court                        principle of freedom of movement and the abolition of
Registry on 10 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                    all discrimination on grounds of nationality,
the administrative proceedings between Stadt Dormagen
( Town of Dormagen ) and Bezirksregierung Diisseldorf
( Diisseldorf District Administration ), joined party: Klaus             — Whether a tax provision which lays down for frontier
Mackel, on the following question :                                          workers employed by persons governed by public law a
                                                                             tax regime which differs according to whether they are
Is Article 2(1 ) and (4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                 nationals only of that State or have dual nationality is
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                    compatible with Article 7 of the Treaty;
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions C ) to be interpreted as precluding a rule            Concerning the special tax regime for teachers
of national law under which in areas of activity in the
public sector in which fewer women than men are
employed in the relevant higher post in a career group,                  — Whether the principle of freedom of movement for
where men and women candidates for promotion are                             workers, as embodied in the Treaty, is contravened by
equally qualified ( as regards suitability, competence and                   tax rules which are liable to affect the choice made by
professional performance ) women must be given priority                      teachers in the contracting States as to whether to work
unless reasons specific to a male candidate predominate ?                    on a more or less long-term basis in another State
                                                                             having regard to the differences, based on the duration
(!) OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                     of employment, in the tax regimes of the States in
                                                                             question;
                                                                         Concerning the tax credit mechanism introduced by
                                                                         Article 20 of the Franco-German Convention as regards
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                       residents of France
Administratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of
10 October 1996 in the case of Mr and Mrs Robert Gilly
       against Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin                — Whether the objective of abolishing double taxation
                           ( Case C-336/96 )                                 laid down in Article 220 of the Treaty must be
                                                                             regarded, in view of the time which the Member States
                             ( 96/C 370/ 12 )                                have had to implement it, as now having the status of a
                                                                             directly applicable rule under which double taxation
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       may no longer take place and whether the objective of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal                             avoiding double taxation assigned to the Member States
Administratif ( Administrative Court), Strasbourg, of                        by Article 220 is contravened by a tax convention under
10 October 1996, received at the Court Registry on                           which the tax regime applicable to frontier workers of
11 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mr                 States party to the convention varies according to their
and Mrs Robert Gilly v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du                    nationality and the public or private nature of the post
Bas-Rhin ( Director of Taxes for the Bas-Rhin ) on the                       held and whether a tax credit tax regime applicable to a
following questions:                                                         household living in one State which does not take into
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/6            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
     account the exact amount of the tax paid in another                          Kingdom conforms to the requirements of Directive
     State but only a tax credit which may be lower meets                         80/778/EEC           in    that   maximum   admissible
     the objective assigned to the Member States of                               concentrations for several parameters in the
     abolishing double taxation,                                                  Directive are exceeded,
— Whether Article 48 must be interpreted as meaning that                     the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
     nationals of a Member State who are frontier workers                    under the Treaty;
     in another Member State may not, by reason of a tax
     credit mechanism of the type provided for by the                   — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
     Franco-German Convention , be taxed more heavily
     than persons whose occupational activity is pursued in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     their State of residence .
                                                                        The grounds on which the Commission considers that the
                                                                        United Kingdom 's application of the Directive is defective
                                                                        may be summarised as follows :
                                                                        — by the acceptance of ' undertakings' from the water
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile                 companies, failure to enforce their compliance with the
di Genova by order of that court of 7 October 1996 in the                    requirements of the Directive, and
case of Ignazio Messina & Co. SPA v. Amministrazione
                     delle Finanze dello Stato                          — failure to ensure that the quality of water supplied in
                         ( Case C-338/96 )                                   several parts of the United Kingdom conforms to the
                                                                             requirements of the Directive.
                            ( 96/C 370/ 13 )
                                                                        (') Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
                                                                            quality of water intended for human consumption ( OJ No
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 ).
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
di Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 7 October 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio
Messina & Co., SPA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
Stato on the questions which are identical to those in Cases            Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 (')•                                  the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
(•) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p . 3 .                                                          ( Case C-341/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 15 )
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of                  Communities on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the United Kingdom                  the European Communities, represented by Claudia
                         ( Case C-340/96 )                              Schmidt, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                            ( 96/C 370/ 14                              Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre C254, Kirchberg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
October 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de                    measures necessary in order to comply with Council
la Cruz, member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.                         Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                                                                             procedures for the awards of public supply
                                                                             contracts ('), the Federal Republic of Germany has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
                                                                             of Article 189 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
— declare that:                                                              Article 34 ( 1 ) of the said Directive,
     — by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings, to                — declare, in the alternative, that the Federal Republic of
         enforce compliance by water companies with the                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligation forthwith to
         requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC ( : ), and                     inform the Commission of the relevant measures
                                                                             adopted to transpose the Directive,
     — by failing, thereby, to ensure that the quality of
         water supplied in several parts of the United                  — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.