title: Case T-577/13: Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/26

         Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)
   (Case T-577/13)
   2014/C 24/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zehnder Verkaufs- und Verwaltungs-AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB ‘Amalva’ (Vilnius, Lithuania)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2013 given in Case R 255/2012-4;

               —

               Order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘komfovent’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 4 635 272

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 CTMR.


title: Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 — Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services — Commercial advertising screening tax)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Joined Cases C-618/11, C-637/11 and C-659/11) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 - Taxable amount for the VAT payable on commercial advertising screening services - Commercial advertising screening tax)
   2014/C 45/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

      Respondent: Fazenda Pública

      Intervener: Ministério Público

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(a) and (3)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 73 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for certain supplies — Tax payable on the broadcasting of commercial advertising.

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 11(A)(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 73, point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 78 and point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 79 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, a tax such as the ‘screening tax’ provided for under Portuguese legislation for the benefit of the cinematographic and audiovisual arts must be included in the taxable amount for the purposes of the VAT payable on services consisting in the screening of commercial advertising.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2001 in Case T-25/99, Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Beer supply agreements — Complaint — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC)

text:
C 317/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              J. Currall) — application for taxation of costs to be reimbursed
                                                                         by the defendant to the applicant following the judgment of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance 23 March 2000 in Case T-95/98
                          of 5 July 2001
                                                                         Gogos v Commission [2000] ECR II-219 — the Court of
                                                                         First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
in Case T-25/99, Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann                    President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung,
 Roberts v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    Registrar, has made an order on 12 June 2001, in which it:
(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Complaint —                      Fixes the total amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case
    Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC)                T-95/98 at BEF 800 000.
                         (2001/C 317/46)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-25/99 Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann
Roberts, residing in Kempston (United Kingdom), represented
by B. Bedford, Barrister, and S. Ferdinand and J. Kelly,
Solicitors, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Nicholas Khan) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 November                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1998 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), compo-
sed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                  of 19 June 2001
a judgment on 5 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                         in Case T-145/00 Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht v Com-
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                            (Officials — Survivor’s pension — Reduction — Period
                                                                          within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-145/00: Jutta Hotzel-Wagenknecht, residing in Alfaz
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               del Pi (Spain), represented by H.-M. Becker, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and B. Wägenbaur) — application,
                         of 12 June 2001                                 primarily, for the annulment of the Commission decision of
                                                                         25 May 1999 reducing the applicant’s survivor’s pension
in Case T-95/98 DEP, Christos Gogos v Commission of                      — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended
                the European Communities (1)                             Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                         A. Potocki, J. Pirrung, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                                                                         H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2001, the
                  (Taxation of coverable costs)                          operative part of which is as follows:
                         (2001/C 317/47)                                 1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-95/98 DEP; Christos Gogos an official of the
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
Commission of the European Communities represented by
C.N. Tagaras, avocat, with an address for services in Luxem-
bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Case T-201/10: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — IVBN v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations — Existing aid — Special project aid to housing corporations — Decision accepting the Member State’s commitments — Decision declaring new aid compatible — No individual concern — Failure to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Action inadmissible in part and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/21

         Order of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — IVBN v Commission
   (Case T-201/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations - Existing aid - Special project aid to housing corporations - Decision accepting the Member State’s commitments - Decision declaring new aid compatible - No individual concern - Failure to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Action inadmissible in part and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2012/C 258/39
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, Agents, and H. Gilliams, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-427/02 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
C 19/20                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
the meaning of Article 4(2) of those Directives, the staff                         cations, annul the decision of the Court of Auditors in
concerned retain the right to request termination of that                          that respect and adopt any appropriate consequent
relationship according to the detailed rules in the relevant                       measure;
provisions?
                                                                             —     acquire the documents submitted by the end of the period
( 1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
                                                                                prescribed by the notice confirming the claims made
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the                relating to whether Mr. Hervé meets all the requirements;
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
     05.03.1977, p. 26).                                                     —     in any event, find that the requirements do not comply
( 2) Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive                 with the requirements objectively discernable from the
     77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member                     competition notice, annul Mr Hervé’s appointment and
     States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the               adopt any appropriate consequent measure;
     event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
     (OJ L 201 of 17.07.1998, p. 88).
( 3) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approxi-           —     in the event that the applicant’s is the only candidature
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                                suited to the post and meeting the requirements to have
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses               been put forward for appointment as Secretary General
     (OJ L 82 of 22.03.2001, p. 16).                                               of the Court of Auditors, declare that Mr Di Pietro is
                                                                                entitled to be appointed Secretary General, in view of the
                                                                                fact that the notice did not reserve a discretion to the
                                                                                Court regarding the appointment of those candidates
                                                                                deemed suitable;
                                                                             —     order the reimbursement of the costs and fees disbursed
                                                                                by the applicant and compensation for the damage
                                                                                suffered as a result of not being appointed to the post.
Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di
Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between
Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European
                              Communities                                    Pleas and main arguments
                           (Case C-427/02 P)
                                                                             The applicant challenges the fact that the Court of First
                                                                             Instance declared his application manifestly inadmissible and
                             (2003/C 19/35)                                  upheld the objection of the Court of Auditors that his
                                                                             statement of 2 August 2001 cannot be deemed to be a
                                                                             complaint.
An appeal against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   According to the Court of First Instance, in his letter of
European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe                       2 August 200 the applicant does not challenge the legality of
Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities                  the decision which adversely affects him nor does it seek any
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      means of settling the dispute out of court. Instead, it merely
Communities on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro,                       sets out a number of questions and requires the production of
represented by Giuseppe Monforte, whose chambers are in                      a number of documents. Therefore the aforementioned letter
Messina.                                                                     cannot be deemed a complaint within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             The applicant argues that the Court of First Instance is wrong
—      acquire the documents relating to the candidates admitted
                                                                             in that his statement of 2 August 2001 contains a request that
       to the examination;
                                                                             action be taken.
—      find that the documents do not comply with the require-
       ments objectively discernable from the competition
       notice, declare inadmissible the non-complying appli-


title: Case T-380/08: Action brought on 9 September 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/51

         Action brought on 9 September 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-380/08)
   (2008/C 285/92)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Mol, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's Decision of 30 June 2008 under reference SG.E3/MV/psi D(2008)5364;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the decision of 13 December 2006 in Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands) (1) the Commission imposed fines on a large number of undertakings, suppliers and purchasers of road pavement bitumen for infringements of Article 81 EC. The Commission did not publish all particulars in that decision. Various legal persons, public and private, including the applicant, have suffered serious losses as a result of the undertakings' actions. As knowledge of that information would be extremely useful in order to recover those losses, the applicant applied under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2) for access to the complete, uncensored version of the decision of 13 September 2006. By decision of 30 June 2008, the Commission rejected that application.
   In support of its application the applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the right of access referred to in Article 255 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission should have provided partial access, as referred to in Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
   Thirdly, the contested decision is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
   Fourthly, the contested decision infringes Article 253 EC, as its statement of reasons is defective.
   Fifthly, the contested decision is contrary to Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2007/534/EC of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case No COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (NL)) (notified under document number C(2006) 4090) (OJ 2007 L 196, p. 40).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-90/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — ONP and Others v Commission

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/13

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — ONP and Others v Commission
   (Case T-90/11)
   2011/C 173/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ordre national des pharmaciens (ONP) (Paris, France), Conseil national de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (CNOP) (Paris), Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre national des pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris) (represented by: O. Saumon, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2010) 8952 final of the European Commission of 8 December 2010, which was notified to the applicants on 10 December 2010, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case 39510 — LABCO/ONP);

               —

               in the alternative, assuming that certain heads of claim are proved, reduce the fine of EUR 5 000 000 imposed on the applicants by the European Commission for infringement of Article 101 TFEU taking into account the extenuating circumstances which exist and the specific nature of the association of undertakings in question;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of interpretation and application of Article 101 TFEU in so far as the Commission took the view that the exception set out in Wouters
                   (1) does not apply to the present case.

         As regards the restrictions on the development of groups of laboratories on the French market for clinical laboratory tests:

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law due to an error of assessment of the scope of the French legislation as regards the respective roles of the prefect and of the Conseil central de la section G de l’Ordre des pharmaciens (Central council of Section G of the Association of pharmacists) (‘the CCG’) during changes which took place vis-à-vis the running of a société d’exercice libéral (company or firm formed by persons practising a profession).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the scope of the obligation to inform, under Articles L 4221-19, L 6221-4 and L-6221-5 of the Code de la santé publique (Public Health Code) and a circular of 22 September 1998, in so far as the Commission failed to have regard to the role of the CCG in the context of its ex post inspection of the company documents relating to sociétés d’exercice libéral operating as laboratories for clinical laboratory tests and also disregarded the obligation to submit observations to the prefect.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the role of the CCG as guarantor of the professional independence of the practising member, in so far as the Commission supported the idea that the practising member should have the lowest possible share in the capital of sociétés d’exercice libéral resulting in the loss of his economic independence and decision-making autonomy.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the legislature’s intention as regards the transfer of shares above a ceiling of 25 % and failure to take account of the legal framework applicable to the transfer of shares in sociétés d’exercice liberal.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in the interpretation and application of Article 101 TFEU by taking into consideration, in the contested decision, the disciplinary sanctions imposed in so far as they exacerbate the possible or actual effects of the decisions criticised.

         As regards the imposition of minimum prices on the French market for clinical laboratory tests:

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of the inspection decision (2) by seizing documents relating to ‘prices’, which has the consequence that the items of evidence gathered on that basis were illegally gathered and, consequently, the claim relating to the minimum prices must be regarded as unsubstantiated.

         If, quod non, the evidence concerning the minimum prices could legitimately be seized by the Commission in the course of its inspection:

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in respect of the scope of the former Article L 6211-6 of the Code de la santé publique and of the legislature’s intention as regards the definition and practice of discounts.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the facts resulting in an error of law as the Commission took the view, first, that the ONP’s conduct relating to the discounts does not fall within the scope of its statutory tasks but reflects its anti-competitive objectives and, secondly, that the ONP consistently, in order to protect the interests of small laboratories, attempted to impose a minimum price on the market for clinical laboratory testing services.

      (1)  Case C-309/99 Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577.

      (2)  Commission Inspection Decision C(2008) 6494 of 29 October 2008 ordering the applicants to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU is the subject-matter of Case T-23/09 CNOP and CCG v Commission (OJ 2009 C 55, p. 49)


title: Case C-69/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/23

         Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-69/07)
   (2007/C 82/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Rechhia and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2003/35/EC expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case C-142/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State),Greece, by judgment of that court of 30 December 2003 inthe case of Maria Aslanidou against the Minister for Health and Welfare

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/42

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, by judgment of that court of 30 December 2003 in the case of Maria Aslanidou against the Minister for Health and Welfare
   (Case C-142/04)
   (2004/C 106/73)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, by judgment of 30 December 2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria Aslanidou against the Minister for Health and Welfare
   The Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               Are the provisions of Articles 3, 4(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and 10(1) to (4) of Council Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1) unconditional and sufficiently precise so that, during the time that elapsed between the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing the directive and its belated transposition into the national law of a particular Member State (the host Member State), they could be relied upon against an administrative body of that latter Member State, to which the national legislation in force at the time when the directive was transposed entrusted competence to grant permission to pursue a particular regulated profession, by an individual who, relying on the fact that he holds a diploma acquired in another Member State and falling within the scope of application of the above provisions of the directive asks to be allowed, in application of those provisions, to take up and pursue the profession in question in the host Member State?

               2.

               If it is considered that, during the time that elapsed between the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing Directive 92/51/EEC and its belated transposition into the national law of a particular Member State (the host Member State), the provisions of the directive were not capable of being relied upon by an individual against an administrative body of that Member State to which the national legislation in force before the directive was transposed entrusted competence to grant permission to pursue a particular profession either to graduates of the appropriate Technological Education and Training Establishment or to holders of a foreign diploma recognised as equivalent to a qualification from the Technological Education and Training Establishments of that State, following a generally-applicable, procedure described in the grounds of the reference, could that administrative body, taking into account the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 (formerly Articles 48 and 52) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, make acceptance of an application by an individual who, relying on a qualification acquired in another Member State, asked, during the above period of time, to be allowed to take up and pursue the above profession in the host Member State, depend on previous recognition, in accordance with the general procedure described above, of the equivalence of the qualification held to qualifications awarded by Technological Education and Training Establishments of that State, or should it have taken steps itself to undertake a comparative examination of the capacities attested to by the qualification submitted against the knowledge and qualifications required by national legislation and to reach a decision accordingly?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 9 July 2002 in Case T-333/00: Rougemarine SARL v Commission of the European Communities (Programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons)

text:
C 219/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14.9.2002
2.     Annuls Articles 3 of Decision 1999/84 in so far as it obliges            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       the Kingdom of Spain to recover State aid granted in the form
       of debt cancellation by public bodies.                                                         of 12 June 2002
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                           in Case T-66/00: B v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
4.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and 30 % of the
       costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allow-
                                                                            ance — Conditions of grant — Recovery of undue payment)
5.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/41)
( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-66/00: B, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), rep-
                                                                           resented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March
                             11 July 2002                                  1999 discontinuing, with effect from 1 September 1997, the
                                                                           education allowance and dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                           the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
in Case T-205/99: Hyper Srl v Commission of the Euro-                      composed of: M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengoz-
                        pean Communities (1)                               zi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
(Customs duties — Importation of television sets from India
— Invalid certificates of origin — Application for remission               1.     Dismisses the application;
of import duties — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC)
   No 1430/79 — Rights of the defence — Special situation)                 2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                           (2002/C 219/40)                                 (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                     (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-205/99, Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, with an                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer and M. Nuñez-                                            9 July 2002
Müller): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
REM 14/98 of 5 February 1999 finding that the remission of
                                                                           in Case T-333/00: Rougemarine SARL v Commission of
import duties due from the applicant in respect of television
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
sets imported from India is not justified, the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          (Programme encouraging the development and distribution
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:                                     of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to
                                                                               award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons)
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2002/C 219/42)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-333/00, Rougemarine SARL, established in Paris
                                                                           (France), represented by T. Levy and O. Rezlan, lawyers, with
 ---pagebreak--- 14.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 219/17
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    1.     dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it asks the
European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and M. Wolfcarius),                          Court to order the defendant to classify the applicant at a higher
supported by Council of the European Union (Agent: A. Lopes                         grade.
Sabino): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision, contained in a letter of 5 September 2000, refusing                2.     dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded.
to grant the applicant financial support under the MEDIA II
programme and for damages to compensate for the harm
suffered as a result of that refusal, the Court of First Instance            3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2002,              (1 ) OJ No C 95 of 24.3.01.
in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant
       in addition to its own;
3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000                                                                              of 12 June 2002
                                                                             in Case T-9/01: Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Invalidity
                                                                                pension)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 219/44)
                            of 11 July 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
                                                                             In Case T-9/01: Michael Becker, an official on leave on
             Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                             personal grounds from the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                           (2002/C 219/43)                                   R. Nathan, lawyer, against Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfers)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision of the Court of
                    (Language of the case: German)                           Auditors of 13 November 2000 rejecting a request to be
                                                                             retired on grounds of invalidity — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                             and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
In Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier, an official at
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by G. Maier, lawyer, against Commission                1.     Dismisses the application.
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser et
M. B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 24 September 2000 concerning the                    2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 3, and of
the Commission’s decision of 24 September 1999 rejecting
the applicant’s complaint — the Court of First Instance (Fifth               (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh , Judges; D. Christensen, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-495/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(m) — Supply of services closely linked to sport — Access to a golf course — Payment of golf club access charge ( ‘green fee’ ) by visiting non-members — Exclusion from the exemption — Article 133(d) — Article 134(b) — Additional income)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/20

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited
   (Case C-495/12) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(m) - Supply of services closely linked to sport - Access to a golf course - Payment of golf club access charge (‘green fee’) by visiting non-members - Exclusion from the exemption - Article 133(d) - Article 134(b) - Additional income)
   2014/C 52/34
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Respondent: Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 132(1)(m), 133(d) and 134(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions — Supply of services closely linked with sport or physical education — Sale by a non-profit-making body of rights to use a golf course for a certain period of time for the purpose of playing golf.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 134(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not excluding from the exemption in Article 132(1)(m) of that directive a supply of services consisting in the grant, by a non-profit-making body managing a golf course and offering a membership scheme, of the right to use that golf course to visiting non-members of that body.

               2.

               Article 133(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not allowing the Member States, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to exclude from the exemption in Article 132(1)(m) of that directive a supply of services consisting in the grant of the right to use the golf course managed by a non-profit-making body offering a membership scheme when that supply is provided to visiting non-members of that body.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case F-11/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Palou Martínez v Commission (Public service — Officials — Manifestly inadmissible — Delay — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/73

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Palou Martínez v Commission
      (Case F-11/10)
      (Public service - Officials - Manifestly inadmissible - Delay - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure)
      (2010/C 288/137)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: María Soledad Palou Martínez (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: V. Balfagon Costa, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Re:

      Application to annul the decision to reassign the applicant to headquarters in Brussels.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Ms Palou Martínez is ordered to bear her own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/98: Volkswagen AG v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Disclosure to the press — Business secrets — Good administration — Fines — Gravity of the infringement)

text:
23.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 273/11
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               2.    Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                               Article 3 of the contested decision to Euro 90 000 000;
                                                                         3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                          of 6 July 2000
                                                                         4.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of
                                                                               the costs incurred by the Commission;
in Case T-62/98: Volkswagen AG v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                              5.    Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.98.
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Partition-
ing of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Disclos-
ure to the press — Business secrets — Good administration
           — Fines — Gravity of the infringement)
                         (2000/C 273/17)
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         in Case T-72/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
In Case T-62/98: Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg
(Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, Stuttgart, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch              (OCTs — Project financed by the EDF — Action for damages
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European                   — Legitimate expectations — Commission’s duty to exercise
Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and H.J. Freund) — appli-                                               control)
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 98/273/EC of
28 January 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.733 — VW) (OJ 1998 L 124, p. 60)                                         (2000/C 273/18)
or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the
applicant in that decision — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,                            (Language of the case: French)
has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it:
                                                                         In Case T-72/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (island of
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/273/EC of 28 January                 Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, of
      1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           the Papeete Bar, and C.A. Kupferberg, of the Paris Bar, with an
      Treaty (Case IV/35.733 — VW) in so far as it finds that:           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         Mr H. Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities (agent: X. Lewis) — application for
      (a)  a split margin system and termination of certain dealer-      compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
           ship contracts by way of penalty were measures adopted        cant as a result of the European Development Fund having
           in order to hinder re-exports of Volkswagen and Audi          refrained from paying a subsidy which it had undertaken to
           vehicles from Italy by final consumers and authorised         grant in the context of a programme concerning the planting
           dealers in those makes in other Member States;                of trees and tropical fruit plants on the island of Raiatea —
                                                                         the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                         K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
      (b) the infringement had not completely ceased between             G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
           1 October 1996 and the adoption of the decision;              ment on 27 June 2000, in which it:


title: Case T-103/10 P (R): Order of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Parliament v U (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Dismissal decision — Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in an application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/41

      Order of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Parliament v U
      (Case T-103/10 P (R)) (1)

      (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Dismissal decision - Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in an application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
      (2010/C 161/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdovà, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: U (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

         Re:

      Appeal against the Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament, not yet reported in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The Order of the President the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament, not yet reported in the ECR, is set aside;

                  2.

                  The application for interim measures brought by U is dismissed;

                  3.

                  Costs are reserved.

         (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-157/04: Actionbrought on 29 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/47

         Action brought on 29 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-157/04)
   (2004/C 106/82)
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, with respect to the uncontrolled waste tip in the Punta de Avalos area of the island of Gomera in the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the application of Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991; (2) the application of Article 2 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and the application of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, with respect to the uncontrolled waste tip in Olvera, Province of Cadiz, in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, the application of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               3.

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The existence of uncontrolled tips at Punta de Avalos and Olvera implies that the Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to guarantee the responsible disposal and recovery of waste, as required by the Community legislation.

      (1)  OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.

      (4)  OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-300/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Doris Salzmann (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Prior authorisation procedure for the acquisition of building plots — Purely internal situation — Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria — Concept of "existing legislation" — Point 1(e) of Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)

text:
C 158/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                5.7.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            to enable a third person to supply a guarantee required and
                                                                                defined by that State, in so far as the legal relationship between
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         the creditor and the guarantor, under the guarantee contract,
                                                                                does not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
                           of 15 May 2003                                          those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
                                                                                private individuals;
in Case C-266/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             —     ‘customs matters’, within the meaning of the second sentence of
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Préservatrice foncière
                                                                                that provision, does not cover a claim by which a contracting
              TIARD SA v Staat der Nederlanden ( 1)
                                                                                State seeks to enforce a guarantee contract intended to guarantee
                                                                                the payment of a customs debt, where the legal relationship
(Brussels Convention — Article 1 — Scope — Concept of                              between the State and the guarantor, under that contract, does
‘civil and commercial matters’ — Concept of ‘customs                               not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
matters’ — Action based on a guarantee contract between                            those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
the State and an insurance company — Contract entered                              private individuals, even if the guarantor may raise pleas in
into in order to satisfy a condition imposed by the State on                       defence which necessitate an investigation into the existence and
associations of carriers, principal debtors, under Article 6 of                    content of the customs debt.
                        the TIR Convention)
                           (2003/C 158/08)                                   (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-266/01: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                                                of 15 May 2003
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    in Case C-300/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
court between Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA and Staat                            the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Doris Salzmann ( 1)
der Nederlanden, on the interpretation of Article 1 of the
abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972                      (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
                                                                             (now Article 56 EC) — Prior authorisation procedure for the
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland                     acquisition of building plots — Purely internal situation —
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                 Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
(OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended text — p. 77), by the
                                                                             Austria — Concept of ‘existing legislation’ — Point 1(e) of
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the                                        Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court                                            (2003/C 158/09)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                                      (Language of the case: German)
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                              in the European Court Reports)
The first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October                In Case C-300/01, reference to the Court under Article 234
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the             EC by the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria) for a preliminary
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the                 ruling in the land registration case brought before that court
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic               by Doris Salzmann — on the interpretation of Article 73b of
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession               the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of point 1(e) of
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be                 Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area
interpreted as follows:                                                      of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — the Court (Sixth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
—     ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of the first        dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
      sentence of that provision, covers a claim by which a contracting      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
      State seeks to enforce against a person governed by private law        F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      a private-law guarantee contract which was concluded in order          a judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 158/7
1.    Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC)                 1.    Declares that, by failing to identify sensitive areas in the
      precludes an administrative authorisation procedure prior to                 intracommunal catchment area of the Autonomous Community
      acquisition of land, such as that established by the Vorarlberger            of Catalonia and the coastal waters of the Autonomous
      Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of                        Communities of the Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, the
      23 September 1993, as amended in LGBl. 1997/85. It is for                    Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, and of the autonomous
      the national court to determine whether such a procedure is                  city of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its
      covered by the derogation established by Article 70 of the Act               obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC
      concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                    of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;
      Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
      and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      Union is founded.
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no
      jurisdiction to answer the third question submitted.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                               of 15 May 2003
                           of 15 May 2003                                    in Case C-483/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
in Case C-419/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)
                                                                             96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
                                                                             the general public against the dangers arising from ionising
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                   radiation — Incomplete implementation)
Directive 91/271/EEC — Article 5 — Urban waste water
        treatment — Failure to identify sensitive areas)                                                (2003/C 158/11)
                           (2003/C 158/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-483/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                             and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
In Case C-419/01, Commission of the European Communities                     adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:                        the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/
identifying sensitive areas in only some regions of its territory,           Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under              for the protection of the health of workers and the general
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991                     public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,                       1996 L 159, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-                obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
chet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,                    composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                     the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                              judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-99/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Export refunds — Misappropriation of goods intended for export — Exporter’s obligation to reimburse refunds — Failure of the competent authorities to provide information regarding the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud — Force majeure — Absence)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-99/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Misappropriation of goods intended for export - Exporter’s obligation to reimburse refunds - Failure of the competent authorities to provide information regarding the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud - Force majeure - Absence)
   2013/C 260/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurofit SA

      Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Re:

   REQUEST for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 351, p. 1) — Exporter's obligation to reimburse refunds in the event of misappropriation of goods — Failure of the competent authorities to provide requested information or communication of erroneous information to the exporter, constituting a case of force majeure within the meaning of the Regulation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The failure by the competent customs authorities to inform the exporter of the existence of a likelihood of fraud committed by the exporter’s contractor does not constitute a case of force majeure for the purposes of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, and, in particular, the first indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) thereof. While such a failure is liable to constitute an exceptional case within the meaning of the second indent of the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2945/94, it cannot, however, release that exporter from its obligation to reimburse export refunds unduly received, that exporter being exempted only from having to pay sanctions due under that article.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case C-7/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/32

         Appeal brought on 10 January 2014 by Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG v European Commission
   (Case C-7/14 P)
   2014/C 52/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Landry and G. Schwendinger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2013 in Case T-147/12 and annul Commission Decision C(2011) 6393 final of 16 September 2011 in Case REM 02/09;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code (1) in holding that the error on the part of the German customs authorities could have been detected by the appellant. That is untrue. The individual provisions are complex and their wording is unclear and confusing. This is evidenced in particular by correspondence between the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Commission. In addition, the duration and extent of the erroneous practice of the German customs authorities also militate against the contention that the error could have been detected by the appellant.
   Secondly, the General Court infringed the second indent of Article 239(1) of the Customs Code in erroneously finding that there had been obvious negligence on the part of the appellant.
   Thirdly, the General Court failed to give sufficient reasons for its judgment on two points, with the result that the reasoning which it followed in order to arrive at its decision is incomprehensible for the appellant.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-82/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 12 February 2016 — K. and Others v Belgische Staat

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 12 February 2016 — K. and Others v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-82/16)
   (2016/C 145/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. K., Z. M., J. M., N. N. N., I. O. O., I. R., A. B.

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Union law, in particular Article 20 TFEU, Articles 5 and 11 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) together with Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, (2) be interpreted as precluding in certain circumstances a national practice whereby a residence application, lodged by a family member/third-country national in the context of family reunification with a Union citizen in the Member State where the Union citizen concerned lives and of which he is a national and who has not made use of his right of freedom of movement and establishment (‘static Union citizen’), is not considered — whether or not accompanied by a removal decision — for the sole reason that the family member concerned is a third-country national subject to a valid entry ban with a European dimension?

                           (a)

                           Is it important when assessing such circumstances that there is a relationship of dependence between the family member/third-country national and the static Union citizen which goes further than a mere family tie? If so, what factors play a role in determining the existence of a relationship of dependence? Would it be useful in that regard to refer to case-law relating to the existence of a family life under Article 8 ECHR and Article 7 of the Charter?

                           (b)

                           With reference to minor children in particular, does Article 20 TFEU require more than a biological tie between the parent/third-country national and the child/Union citizen? Is it important in that regard that cohabitation is demonstrated, or do emotional and financial ties suffice, like a residential or visiting arrangement and the payment of maintenance? Would it be useful in that regard to refer to what was stated in the Court of Justice judgments of 10 July 2014 in Case C-244/13 Ogieriakhi, paragraphs 38 and 39; 16 July 2015 in Case C-218/14 Singh and Others, paragraph 54; and 6 December 2012 in Joined Cases C-356/11 and C-357/11 O. and S., paragraph 56? See in that regard also the pending request for a preliminary ruling in Case C-133/15.

                           (c)

                           Is the fact that the family life was created at a moment that the third-country national was already subject to an entry ban and thus aware of the fact that his stay in the Member State was illegal, important for the assessment of such circumstances? Could that fact be of relevance to combat the possible abuse of residence procedures in the context of family reunification?

                           (d)

                           Is the fact that no legal remedy within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC was applied for against the decision to impose an entry ban or the fact that the appeal against the decision to impose an entry ban was rejected important for the assessment of such circumstances?

                           (e)

                           Is the fact that the entry ban was imposed on grounds of public policy or on grounds of irregular stay a relevant factor? If so, must an examination also be undertaken of whether the third-country national concerned also represents a genuine, real and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society? In that regard, can Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC, (3) which were transposed in Articles 43 and 45 of the Vreemdelingenwet, and the associated case-law of the Court of Justice on public policy, be applied by analogy to family members of static Union citizens? (cf. the pending requests for preliminary rulings in Cases C-165/14 and C-304/14)

               2.

               Should Union law, in particular Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a valid entry ban can be invoked in order not to consider a subsequent application for family reunification with a static Union citizen, lodged in the territory of a Member State, without taking due account of family life and the best interests of the children involved, which were mentioned in that subsequent application for family reunification?

               3.

               Should Union law, in particular Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC and Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter, be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a decision on removal is taken with regard to a third-country national who is already subject to a valid entry ban, without taking due account of family life and the best interests of the children involved, which were mentioned in a subsequent application for family reunification with a static Union citizen, i.e. after the entry ban was imposed?

               4.

               Does Article 11(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC imply that a third-country national must in principle lodge an application for the lifting or suspension of a current and final entry ban outside the European Union or are there circumstances in which he can also lodge that application in the European Union?

                           (a)

                           Must the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 11(3) of Directive 2008/115/EC be understood to mean that the requirement laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of the said Directive, to the effect that the withdrawal or the suspension of the entry ban can only be considered if the third-country national concerned is able to demonstrate that he or she has left the territory in full compliance with a return decision, must plainly have been met in every individual case or in all categories of cases?

                           (b)

                           Do Articles 5 and 11 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude an interpretation whereby a residence application in the context of family reunification with a static Union citizen, who has not exercised his right of freedom of movement and establishment, is regarded as an implicit (temporary) application to lift or suspend the valid and final entry ban whereby, if it is shown that the residence conditions have not been met, the valid and final entry ban is revived?

                           (c)

                           Is the fact that the obligation to lodge a request for lifting or suspension in the country of origin possibly entails only a temporary separation between the third-country national and the static Union citizen, a relevant factor? Are there nevertheless circumstances in which Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter preclude such a temporary separation?

                           (d)

                           Is the fact that the only effect of the obligation to lodge a request for lifting or suspension in the country of origin is that the Union citizen would, if necessary, only have to leave the territory of the European Union in its entirety for a limited time, a relevant factor? Are there circumstances in which Article 20 TFEU nevertheless precludes the fact that the static Union citizen would have to leave the territory of the European Union in its entirety for a limited time?

      (1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Joined Cases T-253/09 and T-254/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Wilo v OHIM (Faceted casing of an electric motor and representation of green facets) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Faceted casing of an electric motor — Application for a Community trade mark representing green facets — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Wilo v OHIM (Faceted casing of an electric motor and representation of green facets)
   (Joined Cases T-253/09 and T-254/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Faceted casing of an electric motor - Application for a Community trade mark representing green facets - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 30/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: G. Braun, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt and P. Quay, agents)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2009 (Cases R 1184/2008-1 and R 1196/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of faceted casing of an electric motor and a figurative sign representing green facets.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Wilo SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-193/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Oberlandesgericht Köln): proceedings challenging an administrative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann (Directive 93/89/EEC — Carriage of goods by road — Taxes on vehicles — Charges for the use of certain roads — Heavy goods vehicles)

text:
5.2.2000                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 34/7
     75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the               goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
     laws of the Member States relating to the application of the             infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32) — the Court (Sixth
     principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 4(1) of            Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
     Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1987 on the                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
     progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment           Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
     for men and women in matters of social security, regulations             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     which impose conditions on married female workers which are              on 28 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
     not imposed on their married male counterparts in respect of the
     grant to employees of family or marriage allowances, which are           In order to determine whether a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
     taken into account in determining their income for the purposes          combination is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by road,
     of calculating pension rights, the Hellenic Republic has failed to       within the meaning of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council
     fulfil its obligations under the said provisions of Community law.       Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by
                                                                              Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                              infrastructures, reference must be made to the general purpose for
                                                                              which that vehicle is intended, irrespective of the use to which it may
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                              be put in an individual case.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 28 October 1999                                                          of 9 November 1999
in Case C-193/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                     in Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communi-
by the Oberlandesgericht Köln): proceedings challenging                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
 an administrative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann (1)
                                                                              (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC and
(Directive 93/89/EEC — Carriage of goods by road — Taxes                                   91/156/EEC — Management of waste)
on vehicles — Charges for the use of certain roads — Heavy
                              goods vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/13)
                             (2000/C 34/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agent: P. Stancanelli assisted by M. Merola) v Italian Republic
In Case C-193/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 (Agents: Professor U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — Appli-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht                   cation for a declaration that by not applying correctly and in
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) (Germany) for a                         full, in regard to the San Rocco riverbed, Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the proceedings challenging an adminis-                 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
trative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann and pending before                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
that court — on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the                     EC Treaty and under Articles 4, 5, 7 (first indent) and 10 of
Agreement of 9 February 1994 between the Governments of                       Directive 75/442 or the corresponding provisions, as amended
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Belgium,                      by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                         L 78, p. 32) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the levying of                          President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and
charges for the use of certain roads by heavy goods vehicles                  R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
(Bundesgesetzblatt [Federal Gazette] 1994, Part II, p. 1768) and              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council Directive                        teur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo, L. Hewlett, Adminis-
93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of                  1999, in which it:


title: Case T-12/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  30 November 2005  — Almdudler-Limonade v OHIM (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a lemonade bottle — Refusal to register — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2005 — Almdudler-Limonade v OHIM
   (Case T-12/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a lemonade bottle - Refusal to register - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 36/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Almdudler-Limonade A. & S. Klein (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: G. Schönherr, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2003 (Case R 490/2003-2) in relation to the registration of a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lemonade bottle
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-187/08: Action brought on 5 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/15

         Action brought on 5 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-187/08)
   (2008/C 158/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing the Directive 2002/91/EC expired on 4 January 2006. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted the measures necessary to transpose the directive in regard to the Walloon Region or, at least, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 65.