title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - State aid - General aid - Definition of aid)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 199/9
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7-9
                        (Fourth Chamber)                              Boulevard Royal — appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                         of 15 May 1997                               (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 13 September
in Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA v. Commission of the                   1995 in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD v.
                   European Communities ( ')                          Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-2265 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
  (Appeal — State aid — General aid — Definition of aid)              being one Commission of the European Communities
                           ( 97/C 199/ 15                             (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Anders Jessen ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
                                                                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and
                 (Language of the case: French)                       L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N. . Kakouris,
                                                                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann ( Rapporteur),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.Tesauro,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 15 May 1997, in which it:
In Case C-278/95 P: Siemens SA ( represented by Michel
Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn) —                    I. dismisses the appeal;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 8 June              2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
1995 in Case T-459/93 Siemens v. Commission [ 1995]
ECR 11-1675 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the            (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents : Jean-Paul Keppenne and,
subsequently, Gerard Rozet) — the Court ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ),
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                                (First Chamber)
on 15 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                                of 15 May 1997
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             in Case C-405/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from ' the Finanzgericht München ): Bioforce GmbH v.
2 . orders Siemens to pay the costs.                                                Oberfinanzdirektion München (')
                                                                      (Common customs tariff — Heading 3004 — Echinacea
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                                              — Medicament)
                                                                                97/C 199/ 17
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                         of 15 May 1997
in Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      In Case C-405/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  (TWD ) v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )              of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht München
                                                                      ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
                                                                      pending before that court between Bioforce GmbH and
   certain aids until previous unlawful aid has been repaid)
                                                                      Oberfinanzdirektion München — on the interpretation of
                             97/C 199/16 )                            headings 3004 and 2208 of Annex I to Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2551 /93 of 10 August 1993
                (Language of the case: German)                        amending Annex I to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/
                                                                      87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 241 , 27. 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ),
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        on the classification of echinacea extract drops — the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet
In Case C-3 55/95 P: Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH                      ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
(TWD ), a company incorporated under German law,                      H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
established in Deggendorf ( Germany ), represented by                 on 15 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and Karl-Heinz Schupp,
Rechtsanwälte, Deggendorf, assisted by Michael                        The Common Customs Tariff, in the version established in
Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau, with an            Annex 1 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551 /93 of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    1 0 August 1 993 amending Annex I to Council Regulation


title: Action brought on 30 August 1995 by Mary Karagiozopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-166/95)

text:
14 . 10 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/29
borrowed by him in relation thereto, since his invalidity           The applicant claims that the Court should :
pension is insufficient to enable him to continue to meet his
monthly outgoings. The applicant is also suffering serious          — annul the decision of the selection board for internal
non-material damage as a result of the illness afflicting him            competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant a
and as a result of having been retired on the ground of                  lower mark for her oral test than the minimum required
invalidity.                                                              and excluding her from the list of successful
                                                                         candidates,
Lastly, the applicant maintains that there is a causal link
between the Commission's wrongful conduct and the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs .
alleged material and non-material damage, since, if he had
not been exposed, over a period of nearly twenty years, to an
environment contaminated by asbestos, he would not have             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contracted the illness and could have pursued his career in
the normal way until retirement age, continuing to receive          The applicant pleads, first, a breach of the principles of
the whole of his remuneration until then .                          equality of treatment and non-discrimination . She observes
                                                                    in that regard that, by reason of the total lack of knowledge
The applicant further asserts that, in the course of the            of the Greek language on the part of the members of the
procedures in respect of invalidity and the recognition of the      selection board, she was obliged to undergo the oral test
illness as an occupational disease, the Commission was at           through the intermediary of an interpreter, which meant
fault in a number of respects, thereby entitling him to             that the conditions in which the oral test took place in her
compensation . He considers that the various instances of           case, and thus the methods used for marking that test, were
irregularity and illegality by which those procedures were          not the same as those for the other candidates . She also
vitiated prevented him, with effect from January 1990 or, at        maintains that, in consequence of the adoption of that
the very latest, June 1991 , from receiving the benefits due to     procedure , the members of the selection board were unable
him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .                     personally to assess two of the appraisal factors, namely the
                                                                    clarity and 'synthesis' of the answers given in her native
                                                                    tongue to the questions put to her in the course of the oral
                                                                    test .
Action brought on 30 August 1995 by Mary                            The applicant also maintains that the marks awarded to her
Karagiozopoulou against the Commission of the European              for the oral test are so different from the assessments made
                          Communities
                                                                    in relation to her in her most recent staff report and in the
                       ( Case T-166/95 )                            proposal for her promotion to grade C2 , and from the
                         ( 95/C 268/60                              marks awarded for the drafting test, that they must of
                                                                    necessity be vitiated by a manifest error of assessment .
               (Language of the case: Frencb)
                                                                    Lastly, the applicant considers that the decision whereby,
An action against the Commission of the European                    despite the defendant's undertaking to provide for 60 posts
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   with a view to upgrading category C posts to category B
Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 1995              posts, the number of candidates admitted to the oral tests
by Mary Karagiozopoulou, residing in Brussels, represented          was limited to 120 constitutes evidence not only of a breach
by Ariane Tornel and Thierry Demaseure, of the Brussels             of the obligation laid down in the fifth paragraph of
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations but also of an
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener.                          intention to limit in advance the number of successful
                                                                    candidates .


title: Case C-245/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balș (Romania) lodged on 28 May 2015 — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balș (Romania) lodged on 28 May 2015 — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR
   (Case C-245/15)
   (2015/C 337/03)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Balș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

      Defendant: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

      Questions referred

               1)

               To what extent may the expression ‘by whomsoever organised’ used in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1073/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a regular transport service can be organised by an economic operator for the purpose of carrying its own employees to and from work?

               2)

               To what extent may the expression ‘carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 kilometres’, used in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers in connection with their travel to and from the workplace?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 88).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).


title: Case C-315/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of GAT Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH v Österreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen AG (ÖSAG)

text:
10.11.2001           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 317/11
2.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(7) thereof, if        5.   If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative: does
    necessary in conjunction with Council Directive                         Article 2(7) of Directive 89/665, if necessary in conjunc-
    92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-                   tion with other provisions of Community law, give the
    nation of procedures for the award of public service                    review body the power in such a case to threaten
    contracts, in particular Articles 25 and 32(2)(c) thereof,              contracting authorities and the members of their execu-
    or any other provisions of Community law, in particular                 tive organs with, and to impose on them, such fines or
    having regard to the effet utile doctrine relating to the               fines and imprisonment by way of coercive penalties as
    interpretation of Community law, to be construed as                     are necessary to enforce their orders and are calculated in
    meaning that a provision in an invitation to tender which               accordance with judicial discretion, where the contracting
    prohibits subcontracting material parts of the service                  authorities and the members of their executive organs do
    concerned and, contrary to the case-law of the Court of                 not comply with the orders issued by the review body?
    Justice, in particular Case C-176/98 Holst Italia [1999]
    ECR I-8607, prevents the tenderer from using his contract
    with his subcontractor to prove that the services of a             (1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
    third party are actually available to him and which thus           (2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
    deprives him of his right to prove his own capability by
    relying on the services of a third party or to prove that he
    actually has available a third party’s services, is so clearly
    contrary to Community law that a contract concluded on
    the basis of such an invitation to tender is to be regarded
    as invalid, in particular where national law in any case
    provides that illegal contracts are invalid?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                       beamt (Austria) by order of 11 July 2001 in the case of
                                                                       GAT Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH
                                                                       v Österreichische Autobahnen und Schnellstraßen AG
                                                                                (ÖSAG)
                                                                                (Case C-315/01)
3.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(7) thereof, or
    any other provision of Community law, in particular
                                                                                (2001/C 317/19)
    having regard to the effet utile doctrine relating to the
    interpretation of Community law, to be construed as
    meaning that a contract concluded contrary to a decision           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    by a national review body within the meaning of                    European Communities by order of 11 July 2001 by the
    Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 relating to the setting           Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
    aside of a contracting authority’s decision not to cancel a        which was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2001,
    contract award procedure is invalid, in particular where           for a preliminary ruling in the case of GAT Gesellschaft für
    national law in any case provides that immoral or illegal          Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH v Österreichische Auto-
    contracts are void but does not provide any basis for the          bahnen und Schnellstraßen AG (ÖSAG) on the following
    effective and compulsory enforcement of the review                 questions:
    body’s decision against the contracting authority?
                                                                       1.   Is Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) 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, or any other provision
                                                                            of that directive or any other provision of Community
                                                                            law to be interpreted as meaning that an authority
4.  Is Directive 89/665, in particular Article 2(1)(b) thereof,             responsible for carrying out review procedures within the
    if necessary in conjunction with Article 2(7), to be                    meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, including the
    interpreted as meaning that where national law does                     exercise of the powers referred to in Article 2(1)(c)
    not otherwise provide any basis for the effective and                   thereof, is precluded from taking into account, of its own
    compulsory enforcement of the review body’s decision                    motion and independently of the submissions of the
    against the contracting authority, the review body has, by              parties to the review procedure, those circumstances
    virtue of the direct application of Article 2(1)(b) in                  relevant under the law governing contract award pro-
    conjunction with Article 2(7), the power to issue a                     cedures which the authority responsible for carrying out
    compulsory, enforceable order to the contracting auth-                  review procedures considers material to its decision in a
    ority to ensure that the unlawful decision is set aside,                review procedure?
    even though national law authorises the review body to
    issue only non-compulsory, non-enforceable orders to               2.   Is Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, if necessary
    set aside contracting authorities ‘decisions in tenderers’              considered in conjunction with other principles of Com-
    applications for review within the meaning of Article 1(1)              munity law, to be interpreted as meaning that an authority
    of Directive 89/665?                                                    responsible for carrying out review procedures within the
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
     meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, including the           Action brought on 24 August 2001 by Commission of the
     exercise of the powers referred to in Article 2(1)(c)                    European Communities against Italian Republic
     thereof, is precluded from dismissing an application by a
     tenderer that is indirectly aimed at obtaining damages,                                       (Case C-323/01)
     where the contract award procedure is already tainted by
     a material legal infringement attributable to a decision
     taken by the contracting authority, other than the decision                                   (2001/C 317/20)
     being contested by that tenderer, on the ground that if
     the contested decision had not been taken the tenderer             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     would none the less have been harmed for other reasons?            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August
                                                                        2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
3.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Council              represented by Richard Wainwright and Roberto Amorosi,
     Directive 93/36/EEC (2) of 14 June 1993 coordinating               acting as Agents.
     procedures for the award of public supply contracts, in
     particular Articles 15 to 26 thereof, to be interpreted as         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     prohibiting a public contracting authority conducting
     contract award procedures from taking account of refer-            1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     ences relating to the products offered by tenderers not as               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
     proof of the tenderers’ suitability but to satisfy an award              administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
     criterion, such that the fact that those references are given            mission Directive 98/101/EC (1) of 22 December 1998
     a negative evaluation would not exclude the tenderer                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
     from the contract award procedure but would merely                       91/157/EEC (2) on batteries and accumulators containing
     result in the tender receiving a lower evaluation, for                   certain dangerous substances, the Italian Republic has
     example under a points system in which a poor evaluation                 failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     of references might be offset by a lower price?
                                                                        2.    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
4.   If Questions 1 and 3 are answered in the negative: Is it
     compatible with the relevant provisions of Community
     law, including Article 26 of Directive 93/36/EEC, the
     principle of equal treatment and the obligations of the            Pleas in law and main arguments
     Communities under international law for an award
     criterion to provide that product references are to be             The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     evaluated on the basis of the number of references alone,          of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
     there being no substantive examination as to whether               Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
     contracting authorities’ experiences of the product have           to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
     been good or bad, and, moreover, that only references              law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
     from the geographical area comprising the part of the              That period expired on 1 January 2000 without Italy having
     Alps within the European Union are to be taken into                brought into force the necessary provisions.
     account?
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 L 1, p. 1.
5.   Is it compatible — with Community law, in particular               (2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38.
     the principle of equal treatment, for an award criterion to
     permit opportunities to inspect examples of the subject
     of the invitation to tender to receive a positive evaluation
     only if available within a 300 kilometre radius of the
     authority issuing the invitation to tender?
6.   If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, or Question 4        Appeal brought on 29 August 2001 (by fax on 27 August
     or 5 answered in the negative: Is Article 2(1)(c) of               2001) by Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, against
     Directive 89/665/EEC, if necessary considered in conjunc-          the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the Fourth
     tion with other principles of Community law, to be                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     interpreted as meaning that if the contracting authority’s         Communities in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99
     infringement consists in imposing an unlawful award                between Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH and the Office for
     criterion, the tenderer will be entitled to damages only if        Harmonisation in the Internat Market (Trade Marks and
     he can actually prove that, but for the unlawful award                                        Designs) (OHIM)
     criterion, he would have submitted the best tender?
                                                                                (Case C-326/01 P)
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/21)
(2) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-128/16: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark SUREID — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/35

         Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID)
   (Case T-128/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark SUREID - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 022/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SureID, Inc. (Hillsboro, Oregon, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and S. Crabbe, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 1478/2015-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign SUREID as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               SureID, Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Case T-192/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Atlantean Ltd v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Atlantean Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-192/03) (1)

   (Fishing - Multiannual guidance programmes - Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds - Decision 97/413/EC - Refusal of the Commission - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Competence of the Commission)
   (2006/C 190/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs, (Ireland)) (represented by: initially G. Hogan SC, E. Regan SC and A. Hussey, Solicitor, then G. Hogan SC, E. Regan SC and M. Fraser, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and B. Doherty, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan and C. O'Toole, Agents, and by D. Conlan Smyth, Barrister]
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as that decision rejects the request to increase the capacity of the vessel Atlantean

   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the applicant's vessel Atlantean;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-344/05: Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/30

         Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-344/05)
   (2005/C 281/56)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: Ioannis Khalkias, Eleni Svolopoulou)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission of 15 July 2005 refusing the request for Community financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural and Guidance Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section; (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, (2) excluded from Community financing various expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the animal premia — extensification, fruit and vegetables and arable crops sectors.
   The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999, (3) in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995, (4) was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24 months commences much later than the Commission considers.
   As regards the correction of 100 % in respect of the premium for extensification, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment of the factual circumstances and claims that it erred as to the facts and gave an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision. The applicant considers, moreover, that the imposition of a correction at the rate of 100 % contravenes the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97, is unjustified and clearly disproportionate, and goes beyond the bounds of proper use of the Commission's discretion.
   As regards the correction in the arable crops sector, the applicant disputes the Commission's finding that there was an infringement of Regulation No 3508/1992, (5) in connection with the identification of agricultural parcels. It also considers that it complied fully with the conditions in Article 15 of Regulation No 2419/2001 (6) as regards administrative and on-the-spot checks. In addition, it cites lack of reasoning and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
   Lastly, in connection with the correction in the fruit and vegetables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission has misinterpreted Article 20(5) and (7) of Regulation No 1169/1997. (7) In any event, the applicant disputes the reasons given in the contested decision with regard to that chapter and alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ L 188 of 20.7.2005, p. 36.

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103.

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 08.07.1995, p. 6.

      (5)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, OJ L 355 of 05.12.1992, p. 1.

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, OJ L 327 of 12.12.2001, p. 11.

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 of 26 June 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits, OJ L 169 of 27.06.1997, p. 15.


title: Case C-447/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Ivo Muladi v Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje
   (Case C-447/15)
   (2015/C 389/16)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Ostravě

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ivo Muladi

      Defendant: Krajský úřad Moravskoslezského kraje

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/59/EC (1) preclude national legislation which imposes further conditions for exemption from the requirement on drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers to obtain an initial qualification?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 226, p. 4.


title: Case C-124/00: Action brought on 30 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 163/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht                civil subsonic jet aeroplanes’ as including ‘civil subsonic jet
Innere Stadt Wien by order of 21 March 2000 in the                      aeroplanes’ as defined at Article 2(1) thereof that have been
         criminal proceedings against Walter Hahn                       modified to meet Chapter 3 standards by being completely re-
                                                                        engined with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three
                        (Case C-121/00)                                 having regard in particular to:
                        (2000/C 163/27)                                 I.   the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  II. the principle of equal treatment
European Communities by order of 21 March 2000 by the
Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Inner City of Vienna District         III. the principle of proportionality
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March
2000, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against          IV. the compatibility of that provision with the Agreement
Walter Hahn on the following questions:                                      establishing the World Trade Organisation and in particu-
                                                                             lar the Agreement on Technical barriers to Trade annexed
Is Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1) laying                   thereto.
down the health conditions for the production and the placing
on the market of fishery products, which has been incorporated
into national law by the Verordnung der Bundesministerin für            (1) OJ L 115, 04.05.1999, p. 1 and Corrigendum OJ L 120,
Frauenangelegenheiten und Verbraucherschutz über Hygiene-                   08.05.1999, p. 47.
bestimmungen für das Inverkehrbringen von Fischerzeugnis-
sen (Fischhygieneverordnung, BGBl. No 260/1997) (Order of
the Federal Minister for Women and Consumer Protection
concerning health regulations for the placing on the market of
fishery products), to be interpreted in its entirety as precluding
the application of provisions of national law which, in respect
of fishery products not chemically preserved (in particular,
smoked salmon), lay down a policy of zero tolerance towards
contamination of such foods with listeria monocytogenes?                Action brought on 30 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(1) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15.
                                                                                (Case C-124/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/29)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court,                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
Dublin, by order of that court of 21 March 2000, in the                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
case of Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and                     represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
Omega Aviation Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation                  its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
                           Authority                                    civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                        (Case C-122/00)                                 Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                        (2000/C 163/28)
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court, Dublin              — declare that, by not adopting and by not communicating
of 21 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry                   to the Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the
on 23 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and Omega Aviation                   to comply fully with Directive 97/54/EC of the European
Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation Authority, on the                    Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 1997 (1)
following question:                                                          amending, as regards the maximum design speed of
                                                                             wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, Council Directives
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1) of                74/150/EEC, 74/151/EEC, 74/152/EEC, 74/346/EEC,
the 29th day of April 1999 on the registration and operation                 74/347/EEC, 75/321/EEC, 75/322/EEC, 76/432/EEC,
within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet                  76/763/EEC, 77/311/EEC, 77/537/EEC, 78/764/EEC,
aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as                    78/933/EEC, 79/532/EEC, 79/533/EEC, 80/720/EEC,
meeting the standards of Volume 1 Part II Chapter 3 of Annex                 86/297/EEC, 86/415/EEC and 89/173/EEC, the Hellenic
16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation third                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
edition (July 1993) invalid is so far as it defines ‘recertificated          Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/17
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 18 December 1998.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex        (1) OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1.
                                                                      (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 23 September 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission
into national law.                                                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
(1) OJ L 277, 10.10.1997, p. 24.
                                                                                (Case C-126/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/31)
                                                                      An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                      2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as
Action brought on 31 March 2000 by the Commission                     Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                    of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                             Republic                                 Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-125/00)
                                                                      — Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (2000/C 163/30)                                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                           to comply with Commission Directive 98/77/EC (1) of
                                                                           2 October 1998 adapting to technical progress Council
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before               Directive 70/220/EEC (2) on the approximation of the laws
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March               of the Member States relating to measures to be taken
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles,
represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as           within the period prescribed by Article 4(1) thereof, the
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office             Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the fourth
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
                                                                           Article 4(1) of Directive 98/77/EC;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           — Declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
                                                                           Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 provisions;
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    tive 97/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the           — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Council of 17 June 1997 on certain component and
    characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the
    Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Pleas in law and main arguments
    under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
    paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty as well as Article      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    8(10) of Directive 97/24/EC; and                                  in Case C-105/00 (3) the time-limit for transposition expired
                                                                      on 31 December 1998.
— Declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform the
    Commission immediately of such measures, the Portuguese           (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
    Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same          (2) OJ 1970 L 76, p. 1.
    provisions;                                                       (3) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-277/02: Action brought on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-Nancy Pascall against the Council of the European Union

text:
9.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             Calpis Co, Ltd (formerly The Cal-         —     annul the decision in the open competition COUNCIL/A/
munity trade mark:             pis Food Industry Co, Ltd)                      393 to give her a mark less than the minimum required
                                                                               for her oral test and not placing her on the reserve list;
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘CALPICO’ for goods
applied for:                   in Classes 29, 30 and 32 —                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               application No 225169
Owner of the opposing          The applicant
trade mark or sign:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Opposing trade mark or         German word mark ‘CALYPSO’
sign right:                    for goods in Class 32                     In support of her action, the applicant relies on a breach of the
                                                                         obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was
Decision of Opposition         Rejection of opposition                   based. The applicant argues that the defendant ought to have
Division:                                                                informed her of the marks that she was given in respect of the
                                                                         various criteria that the selection board was required to
                                                                         consider.
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         In addition, the applicant relies on the breach of the legal
Pleas in law:                  —    Likelihood of confusion              framework constituted by the notice of open competition
                                    between trade marks within           COUNCIL/A/393 and the breach of the principle of equal
                                    the meaning of Article               treatment. The applicant argues that the selection board was
                                    8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)           bound to assess her general and professional knowledge and
                                    No 40/94 ( 1);                       qualifications in an interview in Greek. That interview was
                               —    Infringement of the principle        held in other languages.
                                    of the right to a fair hearing.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Degussa AG
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/02)
Action brought on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-                                                  (2002/C 274/62)
 Nancy Pascall against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-277/02)
                         (2002/C 274/61)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 September 2002 by Degussa
                   (Language of the Case: French)                        AG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Bechthold,
                                                                         M. Karl and W. Berg, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-Nancy
Pascall, domiciled in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,            —     declare the Commission Decision of 2 July 2002 (Case
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address                  C. 373519 — Methionine) void, in so far as it concerns
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     the applicant;


title: Case C-159/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/18

         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-159/07)
   (2007/C 117/30)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/23/EC (1) of 8 March 2005 amending Directive 2001/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 29 September 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 62, p. 14.


title: Case C-157/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land (Free movement of capital — Freedom of establishment — Income tax — Distribution of dividends — Income from capital originating in a non-member country)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land
   (Case C-157/05) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Income tax - Distribution of dividends - Income from capital originating in a non-member country)
   (2007/C 155/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Winfried L. Holböck

      Respondent: Finanzamt Salzburg-Land
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 57 EC — National legislation relating to taxation of dividends issued — Natural person residing in the territory of that State holding two thirds of the shares in a company established in the territory of a non-member country (Switzerland) — Taxation of dividends at the ordinary rate of income tax, in contrast to the reduced rate at which dividends originating inland are taxed
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 57(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that Article 56 EC is without prejudice to the application by a Member State of legislation which existed on 31 December 1993 under which a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a company established in a non-member country, who holds two thirds of the share capital in that company, is taxed at the ordinary rate of income tax, whereas a shareholder in receipt of dividends from a resident company is taxed at a rate of half the average tax rate.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-358/03: Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
1.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 264/19
1.    Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)                    EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
      of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive                safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents
      86/378/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3),                      at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
      preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplemen-                     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
      tary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in                   of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this case under which an employee, during statutory                        Article 14 of that directive;
      maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
      5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,                 proceedings.
      in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
      insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
      the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
      disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
      such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
      paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
      taxable pay under the provisions of national law?                    The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.
2.    Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
                                                                           (1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
      that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
      pension which would be paid if the insurance contingency
      materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
      pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
      old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
      contributions made in respect of her during the period of
      compulsory insurance?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.                                                 of the European Communities against the Republic of
(2) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.                                                                              Austria
(3) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.
                                                                                (Case C-358/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/31)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                               Austria                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                          (Case C-357/03)                                  Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
                                                                           Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
                         (2003/C 264/30)                                   the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the                          notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter                         necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within                       EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an                    requirements for the manual handling of loads where
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
                                                                                (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/                    proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
                                                                        adopted the necessary provisions.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/269/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on               (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
1 January 1995.
That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
adopted the necessary provisions.
(1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 9.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                                                                                (Case C-360/03)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              (2003/C 264/33)
                             Austria
                         (Case C-359/03)
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                         (2003/C 264/32)                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                                                                        Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                   Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                              mission of all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                              provisions necessary fully to comply with Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
                                                                              list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to                     implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              protection of the health and safety of workers from the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/270/                risks related to chemical agents at work (1), the Republic
      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health                     of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
      requirements for work with display screen equipment                     of that directive;
      (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic          2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   proceedings.
      Article 11 of that directive and the third paragraph of
      Article 249 of the Treaty.
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The period for transposition expired on 31 December 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 142, p. 47.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/270/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on
1 January 1995.


title: Case C-186/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket v X

text:
17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?


title: Case C-497/03: Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 21/24                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and the laws, regulations
                                                                           The prohibition on the sale of food supplements by mail order,
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                           laid down in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewerbeordnung, is a
      Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001
                                                                           measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction
      adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council
                                                                           on imports. It constitutes a greater obstacle to the sale of
      Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                           products from other Member States than to that of domestic
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to
                                                                           products. Such a prohibition on sales by mail order makes it
      the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
                                                                           necessary for traders from other Member States to establish a
      substances (1) and, in any event, by not communicating
                                                                           place of business in Austria or attract sales partners there
      them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed
                                                                           whereas Austrian traders in any case already have a fixed place
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
                                                                           of business in Austria, which can be advantageous to them in
                                                                           marketing the food supplements manufactured by them.
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          Austrian traders have the advantage of being able to use areas
                                                                           of the manufacturing premises or the premises on which their
                                                                           place of business is situated as a sales outlet also. This
                                                                           may represent a considerable cost advantage over foreign
                                                                           manufacturers as a result of the expenditure saved.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on               The aims of the protection of consumers against health risks
30 July 2002.                                                              and misrepresentation, which are put forward in order to
                                                                           justify such a prohibition, may be achieved by more lenient
                                                                           means which restrict the free movement of goods to a lesser
(1) OJ L 225 of 21 August 2001, p. 1.                                      degree. The Austrian measure is thus a disproportionate
                                                                           restriction on the free movement of goods.
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
                             lic of Austria
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                           Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by order of that court
                           (Case C-497/03)                                 dated 10 June 2003, in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates
                                                                           Ltd, 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest
                                                                           Residential Care Homes) against Commissioners of Cus-
                            (2004/C 21/44)                                                         toms and Excise
                                                                                (Case C-498/03)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
24 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                                                  (2004/C 21/45)
Communities, represented by J. C. Schieferer and B. Schima,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the VAT and Duties
1.    hold that, by imposing in Paragraph 50(2) of the Gewer-              Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 10 June 2003, which
      beordnung a prohibition on the sale of food supplements              was received at the Court Registry on 26 November 2003, for
      by mail order, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil          a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Kingscrest Associates Ltd,
      its obligations under Article 28 EC;                                 2) Montecello Ltd (trading together as Kingscrest Residential
                                                                           Care Homes) and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                      the following questions:


title: Joined Cases C-94/13 P, C-95/13 P, C-136/13 P, C-174/13 P, C-180/13 P, C-191/13 P and C-246/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. arl and Others (C-94/13 P), Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others (C-95/13 P), Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, previously Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. arl (C-136/13 P), Axitea SpA, previously La Vigile San Marco SpA (C-174/13 P), Vetrai 28 Srl, previously Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, and Others (C-180/13 P), Confindustria Venezia, previously Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), and Others (C-191/13 P), Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, previously Manutencoop Soc. coop. Arl, and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl (Italy) (C-246/13 P) v Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. arl and Others, Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted to firms in Venice and Chioggia — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/19

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. arl and Others (C-94/13 P), Alfier Costruzioni Srl and Others (C-95/13 P), Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, previously Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. arl (C-136/13 P), Axitea SpA, previously La Vigile San Marco SpA (C-174/13 P), Vetrai 28 Srl, previously Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, and Others (C-180/13 P), Confindustria Venezia, previously Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), and Others (C-191/13 P), Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, previously Manutencoop Soc. coop. Arl, and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl (Italy) (C-246/13 P) v Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. arl and Others, Italian Republic, European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-94/13 P, C-95/13 P, C-136/13 P, C-174/13 P, C-180/13 P, C-191/13 P and C-246/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Aid granted to firms in Venice and Chioggia - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   2014/C 409/26
   Language of the cases: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. arl (C-94/13 P), Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl, Group Srl, previously Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM), Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl (C-95/13 P), Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, previously Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. arl (C-136/13 P), Axitea SpA, previously La Vigile San Marco SpA (C-174/13 P), Vetrai 28 Srl, previously Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, Carlo Moretti Srl, Ferro & Lazzarini Srl, Fornace Mian Srl, previously Formia International Srl, Amelio Cenedese, previously Gino Cenedese & Figlio, La Murrina SpA, Nason & Moretti Srl, in liquidation, Venini SpA, De Majo Illuminazione Srl, previously Vetreria De Majo Srl (C-180/13 P), Confindustria Venezia, previously Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Fiorital Srl, Ellemme Sas, previously Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Soc. coop. arl, previously Grafiche Veneziane Srl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Capgemini BST SpA, previously Aive Srl, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Rubelli SpA, previously Lorenzo Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA (C-191/13 P), Manutencoop Società Cooperativa, previously Manutencoop Soc. coop. Arl, and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manutenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. arl (C-246/13 P) (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. arl, Murazzo — Piccola Soc. coop. arl, RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi, Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia, Sacaim SpA, Camata Costruzioni Sas, Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl, ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia, Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C., Alfredo Barbini Srl, Aureliano Toso Srl, AVMazzega Srl, Effetre SpA, Mazzuccato International Srl, Tfz Internazionale Srl, V. Nason & C. Srl, Vetreria LAG Srl, Siram SpA, Bortoli Ettore Srl, Arsenale Venezia SpA, Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, Hotel Gabrielli Srl, previously Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, GE.AL.VE. Srl, Metropolitan SpA, previously Metropolitan Srl, Hotel Concordia Srl, previously Hotel Concordia Snc, Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), Principessa Srl, in liquidation, Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc, Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, Savoia e Jolanda Srl, Hotels Biasutti Srl, previously Hotels Biasutti Snc, Ge.A.P. Srl, Rialto Inn Srl, Bonvecchiati Srl, European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), Italian Republic.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. arl, Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl, Group Srl, Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl, Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. arl, Axitea SpA, Vetrai 28 Srl, Carlo Moretti Srl, Ferro & Lazzarini Srl, Fornace Mian Srl, Amelio Cenedese, La Murrina SpA, Nason & Moretti Srl, Venini SpA, De Majo Illuminazione Srl, Confindustria Venezia, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Fiorital Srl, Ellemme Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Soc. coop. arl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Capgemini BST SpA, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA and Manutencoop Società Cooperativa are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

      OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

      OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


7.3.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 72/15
      Removal from the register of Case C-286/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (1)
                         (98/C 72/31)                                                     (98/C 72/34)
By order of 17 November 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 26 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the           of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-286/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-26/95 (reference for a
of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.              preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Terni): Criminal proceedings against Ivana Rosi.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/32)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-49/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/35)
By order of 20 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-141/97: Commission           By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-49/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                         the European Communities v. French Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-88/97 (1)
                         (98/C 72/33)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-227/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/36)
By order of 24 November 1997 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/97: Commission of         By order of 1 December 1997 the President of the Court
the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-227/97: Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                          of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-92/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 17 February 2012 — Health Service Executive v SC, AC

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 17 February 2012 — Health Service Executive v SC, AC
   (Case C-92/12)
   2012/C 133/33
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Health Service Executive

      Defendants: SC, AC

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a judgment which provides for the detention of a child for a specified time in another Member State in an institution providing therapeutic and educational care come within the material scope of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question one is yes, what obligations, if any, arise out of Article 56 of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 as to the nature of the consultation and consent mechanism to ensure the effective protection of a child who is to be so detained.

               3.

               Where a Court of a Member State has contemplated the placement of a child for a specified time in a residential care institution in another Member State and has obtained the consent of that State in accordance with Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003, must the judgment of the court directing the placement of a child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State be recognised and/or declared enforceable in that other Member State as a precondition to the placement being effected?

               4.

               Does a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State and which has been consented to by that Member State in accordance with Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 have any legal effect in that other Member State prior to the grant of a declaration of recognition and/or enforceability upon the completion of the proceedings seeking such declaration of recognition and/or enforceability?

               5.

               Where a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member State under Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 is renewed for a further specified time must the Article 56 consent of the other Member State be obtained upon the occasion of each renewal?

               6.

               Where a judgment of the court directing the placement of the child for a specified time in a residential care institution situated in another Member state under Article 56 of Council Regulation 2201/2003 is renewed for a further specified time must the judgment be recognised and/or enforced in that other Member State upon the occasion of each renewal?

      (1)  OJ L 338, p. 1