title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 4 November 1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin Neuner (Case C-395/97)

text:
C 26/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.1.98
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Second Chamber)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by not establishing programmes, which
                     of 16 October 1997
                                                                         incorporate quality objectives and set deadlines for
in Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of                 their implementation, in order to reduce water
         Auditors of the European Communities (1)                        pollution caused by the 99 dangerous substances in the
                                                                         first indent of List II in the Annex to Council Directive
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)                  76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous
                         (98/C 26/02)                                    substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
                                                                         the Community (1) and, consequently, by not making
                                                                         the discharges which are made into its waters and are
                (Language of the case: Greek)                            liable to contain those substances subject to prior
                                                                         authorization from the authority which is to lay down
                                                                         the emission standards on the basis of quality
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           objectives set in the programmes, the Hellenic
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                         Treaty and Article 7 of the Directive,
In Case C-140/96 P: Konstantinos Dimitriadis, former
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Markos Papazissis, of the Thessalonica Bar, with an                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant's
home, 4A, Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte Ð
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance           In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 189 of
of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of                       the EC Treaty, directives are binding, as to the result to be
28 February 1996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v. Court               achieved, upon each Member State to which they are
of Auditors [1996] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-151) seeking to              addressed. In accordance with the first paragraph of
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                 Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all
proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the European                 appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Christos                    ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the
Komninos and Paolo Giusta) Ð the Court (Second                       Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions
Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President of the                 of the Community.
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                      Under Article 7 of the Directive the Greek Republic had
Registrar, made an order on 16 October 1997, the                     to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution of its
operative part of which is as follows:                               waters by the substances laid down by the Directive;
                                                                     however, it had failed to give notice of such programmes
                                                                     up until the time when the Commission lodged this
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     application.
2. The appellant is odered to pay the costs.                         (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 4 November 1997 in
                                                                     the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler
Action brought on 10 November 1997 by the Commission                 Landesregierung v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                                                  Neuner
                           Republic
                                                                                (Case C-395/97)
                       (Case C-384/97)
                                                                                (98/C 26/04)
                         (98/C 26/03)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by an order of the Oberster
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 4 November
on 10 November 1997 by the Commission of the                         1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                   25 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service           Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,              v. (1) Herbert Kappes and (2) Edwin Neuner on the
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 26/3
Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of               the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of               The time-limit here passed on 31 December 1995 without
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments               the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                      necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the                forms of order sought by the Commission.
obligations under the treaties on which the European
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its           (1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 16.
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
in Paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or        Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission
are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                                                 (Case C-397/97)
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present                                    (98/C 26/06)
case?
                                                                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
                                                                    and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                    Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                Kirchberg.
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-396/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 26/05)
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                         regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                comply with Council Directive 93/120/EC of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      22 December 1993 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European                       on animal health conditions governing intra-
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi                   Community trade in and imports from third countries
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                   of poultry and hatching eggs (1), or in any event by
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
Kirchberg.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Council Directive 93/121/EC of
                                                                         22 December 1993 amending Directive 91/494/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                 on animal health conditions governing intra-
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              Community trade in and imports from third countries
     comply with Directive 95/25/EC of 22 June 1995                      of fresh poultrymeat (2), or in any event by failing to
     amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems                    notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed
     affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals                   to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
     and swine (1), or in any event by failing to notify those
     provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive,                              Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings.
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                    binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                    Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with              Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary


title: Case T-145/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Vagba v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/24

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Vagba v Council
   (Case T-145/11)
   2011/C 130/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gagbei Faussignaux Vagba (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Gagbei Faussignaux VAGBA, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Gagbei Faussignaux VAGBA be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case C-640/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 December 2015 — Minister for Justice and Equality v Tomas Vilkas

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 2 December 2015 — Minister for Justice and Equality v Tomas Vilkas
   (Case C-640/15)
   (2016/C 059/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Defendant: Tomas Vilkas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 23 of the Framework Decision (1) contemplate or and allow for the agreement of a new surrender date on more than one occasion?

               2.

               If so, does it do so in any, or all, of the following situations: i.e., where the surrender of the requested person within the period laid down in paragraph 2 has already been prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of the Member States, leading to the agreement of a new surrender date, and such circumstances –

                           i)

                           are found to be on-going; or

                           ii)

                           having ceased, are found to be re-occurring; or

                           iii)

                           having ceased, different such circumstances have arisen which have prevented, or are likely to prevent, surrender of the requested person within the required period referable to the said new surrender date?

      (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

      OJ L 190, p. 1.


title: Case C-445/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(j) — Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education — Education provided in the context of courses organised by adult education centres — No direct contractual link with pupils)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
   (Case C-445/05) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(j) - Tuition given privately by teachers and covering school or university education - Education provided in the context of courses organised by adult education centres - No direct contractual link with pupils)
   (2007/C 183/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Werner Haderer

      Respondent: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(j) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for lessons provided by private teachers — Education provided in the context of courses organised by adult education centres
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the activities of an individual acting in a freelance capacity, consisting of providing assistance with schoolwork and also running ceramics and pottery courses in adult education centres, can be exempted from value added tax under Article 13A(1)(j) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment only where such activities consist of tuition given by a teacher on his own account and at his own risk, and covering school or university education. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Joined Cases T-381/13 and T-382/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY and MARGARITAS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word marks DAISY and MARGARITAS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal to register — No distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM (DAISY and MARGARITAS)
   (Joined Cases T-381/13 and T-382/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word marks DAISY and MARGARITAS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal to register - No distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 048/50)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Cases R 427/2012-1 and R 430/2012-1), concerning applications for registration of the word sign DAISY and the word sign MARGARITAS as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 April 2013 (Cases R 427/2012-1 and R 430/2012-1), in so far as they rejected the applications for registration of the word sign DAISY and the word sign MARGARITAS as Community trade marks in respect of the following goods: ‘confectionery, pastries, sweets, soft caramels, marshmallows, caramels, chewing gum, gelatine (confectionery), liquorice, lollipops, toffee, pastilles, sugar, chocolate, cocoa’;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-269/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 295/ 17
Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the              Article 43 of the EC Treaty and adopted, in consequence,
European Communities against the Council of the                      according to the co-decision procedure laid down in
                       European Union                                Article 189b of the EC Treaty.
                        ( Case C-269/97)
                                                                     (') OJ L 117, 7. 5 . 1997, p. 1 .
                          ( 97/C 295/25 )                            ( 2 ) Judgments in Case 68/86 United Kingdom v. Council
                                                                            ( substances having a hormonal action ) and Case 131 /86
                                                                            United Kingdom v. Council [ 1988 ] ECR 855 and 905 ; Case
                                                                            C-131 /87 Commission v. Council [ 1989] ECR 3743 ( trade in
An action against the Council of the European Union was                     animal glands and organs intended for the pharmaceutical
brought before the Court of Justice on 22 July 1997 by                      industry ) and Case C-ll /88 Commission v. Council [ 1989]
the Commission of the European Communities,                                 ECR 3799 and Case C-331 /88 The Queen v. MAFF, ex parte
                                                                            Fedesa and Others [ 1990] ECR 4023 .
represented by Pieter van Nuffel and Gerard Berscheid, of
its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial
that the Court should :                                              Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds, by request of that court of
                                                                     25 July 1997, in the case of Mrs A. M. Sirdar against
                                                                          ( 1 ) The Army Board, (2 ) Secretary of State for Defence
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 of 21 April                                          ( Case C-273/97 )
      1997 (') establishing a system for the identification
     and registration of bovine animals and regarding the                                          ( 97/C 295/26 )
     labelling of beef and beef products,
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by request of the Industrial
— preserve the effects of the annulled regulation until              Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds, of 25 July 1997, which was
     new rules on the subject, adopted by the Community              received at the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a
     legislature on the proper legal basis, enter into force,        preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs A. M. Sirdar against
                                                                     ( 1 ) The Army Board, ( 2 ) Secretary of State for Defence,
                                                                     on the following questions:
— order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                      1 . Are policy decisions which a Member State takes
                                                                              during peace time and/or in preparation for war in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           relation to access to employment in, vocational
                                                                              training for, working conditions in, or the deployment
                                                                              of its armed forces, where such policy decisions are
Absence of correct legal basis : the choice of the legal basis                taken for the purposes of combat effectiveness, outside
of an act should be based in particular on the purpose and                    the scope of the EC Treaty and/or its subordinate
content of the act. Regulation ( EC ) No 820/97 is a                          legislation in particular Council Directive 76/207/
measure which does indeed concern the production and                          EEC 0 )?
marketing of beef, but was adopted for the purpose of
ensuring a high level of health protection. The
Commission considers that where such an act has at its               2 . Are the decisions which a Member State may take in
principal objective the protection of human health, it must                   preparation for war and during peace time with regard
be based on Article 100a of the EC Treaty, even though                        to the engagement, training and deployment of
                                                                              soldiers in marine commando units of its armed forces
the act concerns a product included in Annex II of the
Treaty and might make a contribution, ancillary to the                        designed for close engagement with enemy forces in
principal objective, to the attainment of one or more                         the event of war outside the scope of the EC Treaty or
objectives of the common agricultural policy. The                             its subordinate legislation where such decisions are
Commission considers that the development of the                              taken for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness
                                                                              in such units ?
provisions of the EC Treaty relating to public health
warrant a reconsideration of the interpretation given by
the Court in the past of the relationship between Article 43         3 . Does Article 224 of the EC Treaty, on its proper
and Article 100 of the EC Treaty ( 2).                                        construction, permit member states to exclude from
                                                                              the    ambit    of      Council  Directive  76/207/EEC
                                                                              discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to access
In the alternative, should the Court hold that Regulation                     to employment vocational training working conditions
 ( EC ) No 820/97 does not primarily pursue a public health                   including the conditions governing dismissal in the
objective but equally pursues common agricultural policy                      armed forces during peace time and/or in preparation
objectives, the Commission considers that logically the                       for war for the purpose of ensuring combat
regulation should be based both on Article 100a and                           effectiveness ?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2003 in Case C-436/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 112/6                     EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                10.5.2003
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                             of 20 March 2003
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
in Case C-378/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                         ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                in Case C-436/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium ( 1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
79/409/EEC — Special protection areas — Conservation of
                                 wild birds)                                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                              (2003/C 112/10)
                        (Language of the case: Italian)                                                     (2003/C 112/11)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-378/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza and M. Fiorilli): Application for a declar-
ation that, by failing to classify as special protection areas the
most suitable territories, in number and size, for the protection
of those species mentioned in Annex I to Council Directive                      In Case C-436/01, Commission of the European Communities
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                    (Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as subsequently amended, and of the                      Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within
other migratory species which regularly occur in Italy, and by                  the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrat-
failing to send to the Commission all necessary information                     ive provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/
relevant to most of the said areas classified by it, the Italian                81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)                on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms
to (3) of that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13), or, in any event, by failing to notify
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,                (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in                    the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
which it:                                                                       F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                                judgment on 13 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Declares that, by failing to classify as special protection areas
       the most suitable territories, in number and size, for the               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       protection of those species mentioned in Annex I to Council                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                    comply with Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998
       wild birds, as subsequently amended, and of the other migratory                amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of
       species which regularly occur in Italy, and by failing to send to              genetically modified micro-organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium
       the Commission all necessary information relevant to most of                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
       the said areas classified by it, the Italian Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) to (3) of that directive;
                                                                                2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-364/10: Action brought on 8 July 2010 — Republic of Hungary v Slovak Republic

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/5

         Action brought on 8 July 2010 — Republic of Hungary v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-364/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/07
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to comply with the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) (‘Directive 2004/38’), in that on 21 August 2009, relying on that directive, it did not allow the President of the Republic of Hungary, László Sólyom, to enter the territory of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/38 and Article 18(1) EC;

               —

               further declare that the position of the Slovak Republic, which it still maintained at the time of bringing the action, namely that it is entitled under Directive 2004/38 to prohibit the entry to the territory of the Slovak Republic of the representative of the Republic of Hungary, that is, its President, thereby confirming that such an infringement may recur, conflicts with the law of the European Union, in particular Article 3(2) TEU and Article 21(1) TFEU;

               —

               declare that the Slovak Republic applied European Union law incorrectly in that the State authorities on the basis of Directive 2004/38 did not allow the President of the Republic, László Sólyom, access to the territory of the Slovak Republic;

               —

               in the event that the Court of Justice should find, contrary to the view taken by Hungary which forms the basis of the claims set out above, that a specific provision of international law may limit the personal scope of Directive 2004/83, a position with which the Republic of Hungary does not agree, define in the event of such derogations the extent and scope of such derogations;

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 21 August 2009 the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic informed the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Hungary by a verbal note, in connection with the visit which the President of the Republic of Hungary, László Sólyom, was making on that date, that the competent authorities of the Slovak Republic had decided to forbid the President of the Republic of Hungary entry to the territory of the Slovak Republic.
   The Hungarian Government submits that, by refusing President László Sólyom entry, the Slovak Republic breached Article 18 of the EC Treaty as well as Directive 2004/38. The Republic of Hungary takes the view that the personal conduct of the President of the Republic, László Sólyom, whether in general or in connection with the specific visit, did not represent a real, direct and sufficiently serious risk threatening a fundamental interest of society which could be a ground for adopting any restrictive measure. The Hungarian Government considers that, even if such a ground justifying restrictive measures existed, which it does not accept, the measure whereby in the particular case the entry of the President of the Republic was prohibited does not comply with the requirement of proportionality and goes beyond the aim pursued, which could equally have been attained by other less restrictive measures on the part of the Slovak Republic.
   The Slovak Republic likewise failed to comply with the procedural rules of Directive 2004/38, since the prohibition of the entry of President László Sólyom was not adopted on the basis of a decision in accordance with the directive and was not served on him; the verbal note communicated the decision to refuse entry but did not contain adequate reasoning, and did not state from which administrative or judicial body a remedy could be sought, or the time limit for seeking it.
   According to the Hungarian Government, there is a risk that the Slovak Republic will repeat the infringement, since it still maintains that the prohibition of the entry of President László Sólyom to its territory was lawful.
   The Hungarian Government submits that not only is the application of the law by the Slovak authorities in itself an infringement of Directive 2004/38, the very reliance on the directive was also unlawful, since the Slovak authorities did not pursue the aims of the directive, but intended by relying on the directive to pursue only purely political aims. On the basis of the statements of the Slovak Government, it may be concluded that the prohibition of the entry of President László Sólyom to the territory of the Slovak Republic was not justified by the Slovak Government on grounds of public safety or public order in accordance with European Union law, namely Directive 2004/38, but on purely political grounds, primarily of foreign policy.
   According to the Hungarian Government, the European Commission incorrectly stated in the proceedings that the provisions of national law, not European Union law, should apply to official visits of heads of state of the Member States. The Hungarian Government considers that any group of persons and any kind of visit, whether official or private, definitely calls for the application of Directive 2004/38. That directive generally and in relation to all inhabitants of the European Union recognises the fundamental right of entry to the territory of any Member State which, for a citizen of the Union personally, derives from primary law. Directive 2004/38 also generally and exhaustively lists the cases in which it is possible to restrict the freedom of movement of a Union citizen. The directive does not mention a derogation from the basic principle under which it is possible to exclude heads of state, or another category of citizens of the Member States, from its scope. If the Council and the European Parliament had wished to make the exercise of freedom of movement conditional on a rule of international law, including customary international law, they would certainly have done so when adopting the directive.
   The Hungarian Government submits that neither in codified international law nor in customary international law can there be found a valid legal provision which could apply in the present case. Even if such rules of international law existed, the Member States by acceding to the Union recognised its power to lay down rules on the freedom of movement of persons and agreed that the powers which were left to them in that field would be exercised in compliance with the legal acts of the Union and the law of the Union. If in the case of the entry of a citizen of a Member State to another Member State a provision of international law could restrict the personal scope of Directive 2004/38, it would be necessary for the Court of Justice to define the extent of that restriction plainly, in view of the fact that Directive 2004/38 does not contain such an exception or derogation.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case T-177/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 — Mediaset v Commission (State aid — Telecommunications — Subsidised purchase of digital decoders — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Exclusion of decoders for the reception of television programmes broadcast by satellite — Advantage — Selective nature — Adverse effect on competition — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 — Mediaset v Commission
   (Case T-177/07) (1)

   (State aid - Telecommunications - Subsidised purchase of digital decoders - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Exclusion of decoders for the reception of television programmes broadcast by satellite - Advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Obligation to state reasons)
   2010/C 209/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mediaset SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, G. Rossi, E. Petritsi and A. Nucara, lawyers, and by D. O’Keeffe and P. Boyle, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, G. Conte and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Sky Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented intially by: F.E. González Díaz and D. Gerard, and subsequently by F.E. González Díaz, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/374/EC of 24 January 2007 on State aid C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004) implemented by the Italian Republic for the subsidised purchase of digital decoders (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mediaset SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission and Sky Italia Srl.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-619/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014  — Bionorica v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/48

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Bionorica v Commission
   (Case T-619/14)
   2014/C 409/69
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bionorica SE (Neumarkt, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau and N. Hußmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), failed to entrust the European Food Safety Authority with the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials for the drafting of a Community list of permitted claims for plant materials in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and all the necessary conditions for the application of those claims,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   Plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

   According to the applicant, the Commission’s failure to act infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which provides that 31 January 2010 is a binding deadline for transposition. The applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with that deadline. In that regard, the applicant claims that the Commission is not entitled to construe the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials as not being subject to a deadline. The defendant’s failure to act, in the opinion of the applicant, undermines a uniform application of law throughout the European Union and is not compatible with the basic principle of the regulation to create uniform European rules.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).


title: Case C-410/05: Order of the President of the Court of  15 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-410/05) (1)

   (2006/C 178/53)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-319/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Posting of workers — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Public policy provisions — Weekly rest days — Obligation to produce documents relating to a posting on demand by the national authorities — Obligation to designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain all the documents necessary for monitoring purposes)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-319/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Posting of workers - Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Public policy provisions - Weekly rest days - Obligation to produce documents relating to a posting on demand by the national authorities - Obligation to designate an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg to retain all the documents necessary for monitoring purposes)
   (2008/C 209/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant(s): Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and incorrect implementation of Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Obligation to have an ad hoc agent resident in Luxembourg to keep all the documents necessary for the purposes of controls — Application of national provisions on working and employment conditions both going beyond and falling short of the requirements of the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that

                           —

                           by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;

                           —

                           by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;

                           —

                           by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and

                           —

                           by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there,

                     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC.

               2)

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case T-257/12: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/32

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Siegenia-Aubi and Noraa v Commission
   (Case T-257/12) (1)

   (2014/C 462/45)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-56/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 February 2017 — Bahtiar Fathi v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 February 2017 — Bahtiar Fathi v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
   (Case C-56/17)
   (2017/C 112/36)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bahtiar Fathi

      Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, (1) interpreted in conjunction with recital 12 and Article 17 of the regulation, that a Member State may issue a decision that constitutes an examination of an application made to it for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the regulation, without expressly deciding on the responsibility of that Member State under the criteria in the regulation if, in the particular case, there are no indications for a derogation pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulation?

               2.

               Does it follow from the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, interpreted in conjunction with recital 54 of Directive 2013/32/EU, (2) that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, where there is no derogation pursuant to Article 17(1) of the regulation, a decision must be issued in respect of an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2(b) of the regulation by which the Member State undertakes to examine the application in accordance with the criteria in the regulation and which is based on the fact that the provisions of the regulation apply to the applicant?

               3.

               Is Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings against a decision refusing international protection, the court must rule pursuant to recital 54 of the directive on whether the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 apply to the applicant if the Member State has not expressly decided on its responsibility for examining the application for international protection in accordance with the criteria in the regulation? Must it be presumed on the basis of recital 54 of Directive 2013/32/EU that, where there are no indications suggesting that Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 applies and the application for international protection was examined on the basis of Directive 2011/95/EU (3) by the Member State to which it was made, the legal situation of the person concerned is within the scope of the regulation even if the Member State has not expressly decided on its responsibility in accordance with the criteria in the regulation?

               4.

               Does it follow from Article 10(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the reason for persecution of ‘religion’ exists where the applicant has not made statements and presented documents relating to all the components covered by the concept of religion as defined in this provision which are of fundamental importance for the membership of the person concerned of a particular religion?

               5.

               Does it follow from Article 10(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU that reasons for persecution based on religion within the meaning of Article 10(1)(b) of the directive exist where the applicant, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, claims that he has been persecuted on grounds of his membership of a religion but has not made any statements or presented any evidence regarding the circumstances that are characteristic of a person’s membership of a particular religion and would be a reason for the actor of persecution to believe that the person concerned belonged to this religion — including circumstances linked to taking part in or abstaining from religious actions or religious expressions of view — or regarding the forms of individual or communal conduct based on or mandated by a religious belief?

               6.

               Does it follow from Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU, interpreted in conjunction with Articles 18 and 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the concept of religion as defined in Article 10(1)(b) of the directive, that in the circumstances of the main proceedings:

                           a)

                           the concept of religion as defined in EU law does not encompass any acts considered to be criminal in accordance with the national law of the Member States? Is it possible for such acts that are considered to be criminal in the applicant’s country of origin to constitute acts of persecution?

                           b)

                           In connection with the prohibition of proselytism and the prohibition of acts contrary to the religion on which the laws and regulations in the country in question are based, are limitations to be regarded as permitted that are established to protect the rights and freedoms of others and public order in the applicant’s country of origin? Do these prohibitions as such constitute acts of persecution within the meaning of the cited provisions of the directive when violation of them is threatened with the death penalty even if the laws are not explicitly aimed against a particular religion?

               7.

               Does it follow from Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU, interpreted in conjunction with Article 4(5)(b) of the directive, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, an appraisal of the facts and circumstances may be conducted only on the basis of the statements made and the documents presented by the applicant, but it is still permitted to require proof of the missing components covered by the concept of religion as defined in Article 10(1)(b) of the directive where:

                           —

                           without this information the application for international protection would be considered unfounded within the meaning of Article 32 in conjunction with Article 31(8)(e) of Directive 2013/32/EU and

                           —

                           national legislation provides that the competent authority must establish all the relevant circumstances for the examination of the application for international protection and the court, should the refusal decision be contested, must point out that the person concerned has not offered and presented any evidence?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

      (2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

      (3)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Action brought on 10 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-335/96)

text:
21 . 12 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 388/3
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those              21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
Directives — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for             application of review procedures to the award of public
the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.          supply and public works contracts (*), the Hellenic
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur),                    Republic is in breach of its obligations under the Treaty
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,             and, more specifically, Directive 89/665/EEC.
gave a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 . declares that, ,by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative                   In the Commission's view, the Greek legislation does not
     provisions necessary to comply with :                            meet fully the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of
                                                                      Directive 89/665/EEC, in particular with regard to the
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                possibility of setting aside administrative decisions, the
          concerning the animal health conditions governing           taking of interim measures, the implementation of
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals            decisions of the national courts against the administration
          and products,                                               and the award of damages in cases of unlawful failure to
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991                  award contracts . The Commission also considers that the
          laying down the health conditions for the                   practice of the Hellenic Republic whereby the more
          production and the placing on the market of live            important public works contracts are ratified by law, with
          bivalve molluscs,                                           the result that individuals cannot challenge the award and
                                                                      the relevant contract, is contrary to the general principle
     — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991                  of Community law concerning effective legal protection of
          laying down the health conditions for the                   rights under Community law.
          production and the placing on the market of
          fishery products, and                                       (!) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 .
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992
          laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels
          in accordance with Article 3 (1 ) (a) (i) of Directive
          91 /493/EEC,                                                Action brought on 14 October 1996 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against Industrial Refuse
     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                  and Coal Energy Limited
     Article 29 (1 ) of Directive 91 /67, the first paragraph                                 ( Case C-337/96 )
     of Article 15 of Directive 91 /492, the first paragraph
     of Article 18 of Directive 91 /493 and the first                                            ( 96/C 388/06 )
     paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 92/48;
                                                                      An action against Industrial Refuse and Coal Energy
2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Limited was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 14 October 1996 by the
(M OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                      by Mr Thomas F. Cusack, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                      assisted by Mr Fergus Randolph, Barrister, of the English
                                                                      Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal
Action brought on 10 October 1996 by the Commission                   Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          Case C-335 /96 )                            1 . order the defendant to pay the Commission the sum of
                           96/C 388/05 )                                  ECU 242 234 together with continuing interest for late
                                                                          payment at the rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 ;
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
before the Court of Justice on 10 October 1996 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal Adviser to the Commission,
and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, with an             The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             recovery of financial support granted by the applicant to
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      the defendant for undertaking the conversion of an
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    existing transfer station to electrical power generation
                                                                      from the preparation of raw urban waste . The
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that,              Commission has withdrawn from the contract between the
by failing to take the necessary measures, within the                 parties, concluded under the law of England, because the
period prescribed, on public works procurement, to ensure             defendant has failed to comply with his obligations.
the correct application and effectiveness in practice of
Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus by order of that court of 19 June 1997 in the case of KappAhl Oy (Case C-233/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 252/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van                   5 , ( a ) If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) or Question 4 are
Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June                              answered in the affirmative, does Article 3 of
1997 in the case of L. Nederhoff & Zonen v. Dijkgraaf en                              Directive    76/464/EEC,       whether    or     not   in
   Hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap Rijnland                                  conjunction with Article 10 of the Directive,
                          Case C-232/97 )
                                                                                permit, in connection with the appraisal of
                                                                                applications for authorization, requirements to be
                           ( 97/C 252/37)                                             imposed which are not contained in the Directive,
                                                                                such as the obligation to investigate whether to
                                                                                choose less environmentally harmful alternatives ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van                            ( b ) If so, may those additional requirements lead to a
State ( Council of State ), Netherlands, of 17 June 1997,                             situation in which the grant of authorization is
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June                                   impossible or possible only in exceptional cases ?
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of L. Nederhoff
& Zonen v. Dijkgraaf en Hoogheemraden van het Hoog
heemraadschap Rijnland ( Dike warden and members of                    6 . If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) or Question 4 are
                                                                              answered        in   the     affirmative, do   the     limitative
the Rijnland Polder and Dike Conservancy ) on the
following questions:                                                          conditions contained in Annex I, point 32 ( 1 ) ( i ) and
                                                                              ( ii ), of Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976
                                                                              on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions of the Member States
1 . Must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( d) of                      relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on                            certain dangerous substances and preparations ( OJ No
     pollution caused by certain dangerous substances                         L 262, 27. 9 . 1976, p. 201 ) preclude a competent
     discharged into the aquatic environment of the                           authority of a Member State, when considering
     Community ( OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 ) be                      applications for authorization concerning the
     interpreted to include other 'significant sources ...                    introduction into surface water by professional users
     ( including multiple and diffuse sources )', as laid down                of creosote-treated wood, from applying assessment
     in Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on                       criteria such as to make that use impossible or possible
     limit values and quality objectives for discharges of                    only in very exceptional cases ?
     certain dangerous substances included in List I of the
     Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC ( OJ No L 181 , 4. 7.
     1986, p. 16 )?
2 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative, must the
     expression '( other) significant sources ... ( including          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan
     multiple and diffuse sources )' in Article 5 of Directive         Laaninoikeus by order of that court of 19 June 1997 in
     86/280/EEC, be interpreted to include the leaching of                                       the case of KappAhl Oy
     creosote oil from wood placed in surface water ?                                                ( Case C-233/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/38 )
3 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative, or the
     replies to Questions 1 and 2 are both in the negative,
     must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( d ) of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Directive 76/464/EEC be interpreted as including:                 European Communities by an order of the Uudenmaan
                                                                       Laaninoikeus (Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court )
                                                                       of 19 June 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
     ( a ) the introduction into surface water of wood                 on 25 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
           impregnated with creosote oil, even though it is            KappAhl Oy on the following question:
           established in advance that through leaching-out
           the creosote oil will reach the surface water; or
                                                                       Is Article 99 of the Act of Accession ( ! ) to be interpreted
                                                                       as referring also to goods originating in non-member
     ( b ) the leaching out of creosote oil from wood placed           countries which have been in free circulation in another
           in surface water ?
                                                                       Member State of the European Community and are
                                                                       imported from there into Finland ?
4 . If Questions 3 ( a ) and/or 3 ( b ) are answered in the
                                                                       ( 1 ) Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republiic of
     negative, is it permissible, in the light particularly of               Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
     Article 5 (2 ) and Article 10 of Directive 76/464/EEC,                  and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
     for national legislation or the competent authority to                  Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p. 21 ).
     give another, more wide-ranging meaning to the
     notion of 'discharge' than that contained in the
     Directive ?


title: Case T-216/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/30              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Decision of the Opposition       Acceptance of the opposition             principle of non-discrimination. The applicant points out that
Division:                        for services falling within              the defendant did not conduct an examination of the compara-
                                 class 42, rejection of the oppo-         tive merits of the applicant with those of the officials of all the
                                 sition for products falling with-        Directorates-General eligible for promotion, but limited itself to
                                 in classes 9 and 35                      the ‘quota’ which had been allocated to the applicant's Direc-
                                                                          torate-General, gave an advantage to officials considered as
                                                                          reserve candidates from the previous year's promotion proce-
                                                                          dure and did not take account of applicant's transfer, during
Decision of the Board of         Action upheld, contested deci-           the reference period, from one Directorate-General to another.
Appeal:                          sion annulled
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 8(5) of
                                 (EC) Regulation No 40/94 and,
                                 in the alternative, infringement
                                 of Article 8(1)(b) of the regula-
                                 tion                                     Action brought on 19 June 2003 by Fédération Nationale
                                                                          de la Coopération Bétail et Viande (FNCBV) against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-217/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/55)
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo Tenreiro
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-216/03)
                         (2003/C 200/54)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities on 19 June 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          Nationale de la Coopération Bétail et Viande, (National Coop-
                                                                          erative Association for Livestock and Meat) established in Paris,
                                                                          represented by Robert Collin and Michel Ponsard, lawyers, with
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   an address for service in Luxembourg.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Mário Paulo
Tenreiro, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul Decision C.38.179/F3 of 2 April 2003 in so far as
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     it affects the applicant;
—     annul the decision not to promote the applicant in the              —     alternatively quash the fine imposed by that decision;
      2002 promotion procedure, as it appears from the
      absence of the applicant's name in the list of officials
      promoted to grade A4 published in the Administrative                —     in the further alternative reduce it;
      Notice of 14 August 2002 (No 69-2002);
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
—     declare that the applicant is entitled to the actual promo-
      tion which should have been granted him in the 2002
      promotion procedure, with retrospective effect and full
      restoration of his financial and career rights;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By its contested decision, the Commission imposed on the
                                                                          applicant and five other French associations of producers and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          slaughterers a fine based on alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in respect of an agreement to
In support of his action the applicant pleads infringement of             suspend beef imports to France and to fix a minimum price
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                  for certain categories of animals.


title: Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-326/98)

text:
C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Case F-45/16: Action brought on 17 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/32

         Action brought on 17 August 2016 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-45/16)
   (2016/C 371/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material loss that the applicant maintains he has suffered following the declaration of his total and permanent invalidity, which he regards as being of occupational origin.

      Form of order sought

   Compensate the applicant for the loss or for part of the loss in the case in which part of the loss would have been reimbursed by the EIB's AXA Belgium insurance.

               —

               Damages in relation to the violation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant amounting to EUR 150 000;

               —

               Reimbursement of future medical and psychological costs related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress of the applicant, and which is not reimbursed by the EIB Health Insurance Scheme;

               —

               Reimbursement of medical and psychological costs to date related to the health issues developed due to the severe stress, and which is not reimbursed by the IB Health Insurance Scheme;

               —

               Repayment of the applicant’s legal fees for the current proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 30 000.


title: Case C-169/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy)) — Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — State aid — Article 87 EC — Regional legislation establishing a tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on operators whose tax domicile is outside the territory of that region)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy)) — Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione autonoma della Sardegna
   (Case C-169/08) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Article 49 EC - State aid - Article 87 EC - Regional legislation establishing a tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on operators whose tax domicile is outside the territory of that region)
   2010/C 24/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte costituzionale (Italy)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Defendant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Costituzionale (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 87 EC — Regional legislation under which a tax is imposed in respect of stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft only on undertakings, operating aircraft for the transport of persons or goods by way of an activity ancillary to their main business, whose tax domicile is outside Sardinia — State aid, in the form of an exclusion from the obligation to pay the tax, to undertakings carrying on the same activities whose tax domicile is in Sardinia

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation, adopted by a regional authority, such as that provided for under Article 4 of Law No 4 of the Region of Sardinia of 11 May 2006 (Miscellaneous provisions on revenue, reclassification of costs, social policy and development) as amended by Article 3(3) of Law No 2 of the Region of Sardinia of 29 May 2007 (Provisions for the preparation of the annual and long-term budget of the Region — 2007 Finance Law), which establishes a regional tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on natural and legal persons whose tax domicile is outside the territory of the region.

               2.

               Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that tax legislation, adopted by a regional authority, which establishes a tax on stopovers, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to be imposed only on natural and legal persons whose tax domicile is outside the territory of the region, constitutes a State aid measure in favour of undertakings established in that territory.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.