title: Case C-320/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales), by order of that court of 20 July 2000, in the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent Office Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and 3) Mitie Secure Services Ltd

text:
C 316/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
      (third non-life insurance Directive), does not preclude mutual         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
      benefit societies engaged solely in insurance business from            1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:
      creating between themselves a body with legal personality and          G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      legal autonomy — such as an association of mutual benefit              teur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      societies — which engages in commercial business, provided             P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and
      that the capital subscribed to that body by those societies does       H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-
      not exceed the value of their free assets and provided that, in        man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      each case, the society’s liability is limited to the value of its      given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it has
      capital contribution.                                                  ruled:
2.    Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 73/239, as amended by Directive
      92/49, is sufficiently precise and unconditional to be relied          Where the competent authorities of a Member State apply a provision
      upon before the national courts as against the administrative          of law
      authorities and entails the inapplicability of any rule of national
      law incompatible with it.                                              —      which fixes the amount of the retirement pension awarded to a
                                                                                married worker,
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                             —      which provides for that pension to be reduced, by the amount of
                                                                                a pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another
                                                                                Member State, but
                                                                             —      which provides for the application of a derogating clause in
                                                                                respect of overlapping where the pension paid elsewhere is less
                                                                                than a certain amount,
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             it is contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             Article 39 EC) for those authorities to reduce the amount of the
                       of 26 September 2000                                  pension awarded to a migrant worker by the amount of a pension
                                                                             awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State,
in Case C-262/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    when the grant of that latter pension does not involve any increase in
the Arbeidshof, Antwerp (Belgium)): Rijksdienst voor                         the couple’s total income.
               Pensioenen v Robert Engelbrecht (1)
(Social security — Freedom of movement for workers —                         (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
Retirement pension — Increase in respect of dependent
spouse — Articles 12 and 46a of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Overlapping of pensions awarded under the
              legislation of different Member States)
                           (2000/C 316/25)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                             (England & Wales), by order of that court of 20 July 2000,
                                                                             in the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Office Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               3) Mitie Secure Services Ltd
In Case C-262/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                           (Case C-320/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeidshof,
Antwerp (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                           (2000/C 316/26)
pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
and Robert Engelbrecht — on the interpretation of Article 48
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Articles 12(2) and 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                      (England & Wales) of 20 July 2000, which was received at the
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       Court Registry on 22 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent Office
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                      Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and 3) Mitie Secure
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as                    Services Ltd, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 316/15
1.    Is Article 141 (1) directly applicable in the circumstances        Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
      of this case (as set out in this judgment) so that it can be       address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
      relied upon by the applicants in national proceedings to           Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,
      enable them to compare their pay with that of men in               Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
      the employment of the North Yorkshire County Council
      who are performing work of equal value to that done by             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the applicants?
                                                                         1.    declare that, by granting the seal of quality ‘Markenquali-
2.    Can an applicant who seeks to place reliance on the direct
                                                                               tät aus deutschen Landen’ to manufactured goods of a
      effect of Article 141, do so only if the respondent
                                                                               certain quality produced in Germany, the Federal Republic
      employer is in a position where he is able to explain
                                                                               of Germany has infringed Article 28 EC;
      why the employer of the chosen comparator pays his
      employees as he does?
                                                                         2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The grant of the quality mark exclusively to German products
                                                                         which meet certain quality standards is likely to impede
                                                                         imports between Member States, whether directly or indirectly,
                                                                         actually or potentially. A designation of quality may not —
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                  subject to the provisions on designations of origin and
Münster by order of 21 August 2000 in the case of                        indication as to provenance — be reserved for domestic
     Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt Steinfurt                        products. The designation in question does not fall within the
                                                                         scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92,
                                                                         since it is too remote from the specific subject-matter of that
                         (Case C-324/00)                                 regulation. Even advertising by reference to a quality mark is
                                                                         not allowed to include the geographical origin of the goods, in
                         (2000/C 316/27)                                 this case ‘German’. Even if it is conceded to the Federal
                                                                         Government that the seal of quality does not reflect any
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ‘chauvinistic intentions’, the emphasis on quality in direct
European Communities by order of 21 August 2000 by the                   association with an indication as to provenance — in this case,
Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Münster, which was received at             the domestic origin of the product — none the less constitutes
the Court Registry on 4 September 2000, for a preliminary                at the same time discrimination against equivalent goods of
ruling in the case of Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v Finanzamt                 different origin.
Steinfurt on the following question:
Is the requirement of freedom of establishment for nationals
of a Member State in the territory of another Member State
laid down in Article 43 of the Treaty of 10 November 1997
establishing the European Community to be interpreted as
precluding the national rule in Paragraph 8a of the German
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Law on Corporation Tax)?
                                                                         of Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
                                                                         by order of that court of 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000 in the case of Santex SpA v
                                                                         Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42, Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke,
                                                                                Artsana SpA and Fater SpA
                                                                                (Case C-327/00)
Action brought on 4 September 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                         (2000/C 316/29)
                         (Case C-325/00)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
                                                                         Tribunal Amministrativo per la Lombardia (Regional Adminis-
                         (2000/C 316/28)                                 trative Court, Lombardy) dated 15 October 1999, 30 March
                                                                         2000 and 23 June 2000, which was received at the Court
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    Registry on 5 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             case of Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale No 42,
ties on 4 September 2000 by the Commission of the European               Pavia, Sca Mölnlycke, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the
Communities, represented by J. Christian Schieferer and                  following questions:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 December 1995 in Case C-415/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Liège): Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL and Others v. Jean-Marc Bosman and Others (Freedom of movement for workers - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Professional footballers - Sporting rules on the transfer of players requiring the new club to pay a fee to the old club - Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match)

text:
No C 64/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                       ( Fifth Chamber)
                    of 14 December 1995                              f 1 ) OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
in    Case    C-17/95 : Commission of the European
              Communities v. French Republic (')
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/628/EEC and 92/35/EEC —
                     Failure to transpose)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 64/11 )
                                                                                of 15 December 1995
                                                                     in Case C-415/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                (Language of the case: French)                       the Cour d'Appel, Liege ): Union Royale Beige des Sociétés
                                                                     de Football Association ASBL and Others v. Jean-Marc
                                                                                Bosman and Others ( ! )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules
         published in the European Court Reports)                    applicable to undertakings — Professional footballers —
                                                                     Sporting rules on the transfer ofplayers requiring the new
                                                                     club to pay a fee to the old club — Limitation ofthe number
In Case C-17/95 : Commission of the European                         of players having the nationality of other Member States
Communities ( Agent: Gerard Rözet ) v. French Republic                                who may be fielded in a match)
(Agents : Edwige Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi )
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and                                       ( 96/C 64/ 12 )
communicate, within the prescribed period, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order                          (Language of the case: French)
to comply with Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January
1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the
placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( OJ No L 46 , 1991 , p. 1 ), Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of                 published in the European Court Reports)
19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during
transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and                     In Case C-415/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
91/496/EEC ( OJ No L 340, 1991 , p. 17) and Council                  of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel ( Court of Appeal ),
Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control             Liege, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
rules and measures to combat African horse sickness ( OJ No          pending before that court between Union Royale Beige des
L 157, 1992, p. 19 ), the French Republic has failed to fulfil       Sociétés de Football Association ASBL and Jean-Marc
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth              Bosman, between Royal Club Liégeois SA and Jean-Marc
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the            Bosman, SA d'Économie Mixte Sportive de l'Union Sportive
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann                       du Littoral de Dunkerque, Union Royale Beige des Sociétés
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,         de Football Association ASBL and Union des Associations
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on            Europeennes de Football ( UEFA ), and between Union des
14 December 1995 , in which it:                                      Associations Europeennes de Football (UEFA ) and
                                                                     Jean-Marc Bosman — on the interpretation of Articles 48 ,
                                                                     85 and 86 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations         Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
    and administrative provisions necessary in order the             Edward and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
     comply with:                                                    Mancini ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H.
    — Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November                   Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R.
         1991 on the protection of animals during transport          Grass, Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
        and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgement on
         91 /496/EEC,                                                 15 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
     and
                                                                      1 . Article 48 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of
                                                                           rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a
     — Council Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992                        professional footballer who is a national of one Member
         laying down control rules and measures to combat                  State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club,
        African horse sickness,                                            be employed by a club of another Member State unless
                                                                           the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer,
                                                                           training or development fee;
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under Article 21 (1 ) of Directive 91 /628/EEC and
     Article 20 (1 ) of Directive 92/35/EEC, referred to             2 . Article 48 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of
     above;                                                                rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 64/7
      matches in competitions which they organize, football                          OPINION 3/94 OF THE COURT
      clubs may field only a limited number of professional                               of 13 December 1995 f 1 )
      players who are nationals of other Member States;
                                                                        (GATT — WTO — Framework Agreement on Bananas)
3 . the direct effect ofArticle 48 of the EC Treaty cannot be                                      ( 96/C 64/14 )
      relied upon in support of claims relating to a fee in
      respect of transfer, training or development which has           Request made to the Court on 25 July 1994 under
      already been paid on, or is still payable under an               Article 228 ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty by the Federal Republic of
      obligation which arose before, the date ofthis judgment,         Germany for an opinion on the compatibility with the
      except by those who have brought court proceedings or            Treaty of the Framework Agreement on Bananas between
      raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national         the European Community and Colombia, Costa Rica,
      law before that date.                                            Nicaragua and Venezuela and asking:
(>) OJ No C 312, 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                      ( a ) was the Framework Agreement on Bananas which was
                                                                             signed by the Commission on 28 and 29 March 1994
                                                                             duly negotiated from the point of view of procedural
                                                                             law, that is to say,
                                                                             — on the basis of a sufficient negotiating mandate
                                                                                from the Council, and
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             — in compliance with the relevant negotiating
                        (First Chamber )
                                                                                directives laid down by the Council ?
                     of 14 December 1995
in Case C-173/95 P: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the              ( b ) is the Framework Agreement on Bananas compatible
                   European Communities ( 1 )                                with the Treaty from the point of view of the
                                                                             substantive law ?
     (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
                            ( 96/C 64/ 13 )
                                                                       The Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                       President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A, Schockweiler
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                       C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann. H. Ragnemalm and L.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Sevón, Judges, after hearing G. Tesauro , First
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General , C. O. Lenz, F. G. Jacobs , A. M. La
                                                                       Pergola , G. Cosmas, P. Leger, M. B. Elmer, N. Fennelly and
In Case C-173/95 P , Anne Hogan, an official of the                    D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocates-General, finds :
European Parliament, resident in Luxembourg, represented
by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar, with                  there is no need to respond to the request for an
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux,                  opinion.
appellant, appeals against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93 Hogan v. Court of
Justice [ 19951 ECR-SC 11-251 , seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agents :
Luigia Maggioni and Niels Lierow ). The Court ( First
 Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the
 Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate-General : A. La Pergola , Registrar: R. Grass, has             Action brought on 18 December 1995 by the Federal
given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:                     Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                Case C-396/95 )
 1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/ 15 )
 2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                      European Communities on 18 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Rder,
                                                                        Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economics,
                                                                        D-53107 Bonn .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-128/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/29
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 19 September 2001                                                          of 19 September 2001
in Case T-128/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office                           in Case T-129/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                         for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                      and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                       and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                        (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                            machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                   Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                            (EC) No 40/94)                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                             (2002/C 3/49)                                                                 (2002/C 3/50)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                               (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-128/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in                    In Case T-129/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by                   Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address                  C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation                   for service in Luxembourg against Office for Harmonisation in
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)                   A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg) —
— application brought against the decision of the First Board                 application brought against the decision of the First Board of
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case                        (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case
R-506/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on                         R-508/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second                           13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki                      Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
which it:                                                                     which it:
1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office          1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case R-506/1999-1) in so far                        Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case R-508/1999-1) in so far
      as it concerns products falling within Class 3 of the Nice                    as it concerns products falling within Class 3 of the Nice
      Agreement corresponding to the description ‘perfumery, essential              Agreement corresponding to the description ‘perfumery, essential
      oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’;                                  oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                  2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                     (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case C-81/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin by order of 14 January 2004 in the case of Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin by order of 14 January 2004 in the case of Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH.
   (Case C-81/04)
   (2004/C 106/37)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 14 January 2004 by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin (Labour Court, Berlin), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH on the following questions:

               1.

               Must Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted to the effect that ‘redundancy’ for the purposes of Article 1(1)(a) thereof is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal as the first act in terminating the employment relationship or does ‘redundancy’ mean the termination of the employment relationship upon expiry of the period of notice?

               2.

               If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the notice of dismissal, does the Directive require that both the consultation procedure under Article 2 of the Directive and the notification procedure under Articles 3 and 4 thereof must have been concluded before the notices of dismissal are issued?

               3.

               If ‘redundancy’ is to be construed as meaning the actual termination of the employment relationship, is it sufficient under the terms of the Directive if the consultation procedure is also conducted only after the notices of dismissal have been issued?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-43/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-43/07)
   (2007/C 69/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the estate of a person resident in another Member State at the time of his death on the basis of the value of the immovable property without account being taken of overendowment debts owed by the inheritor by reason of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos?

               2.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison — one of the two methods referred to in 3.6.6 [of the judgment] or another method entirely — must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty?

               3.

               Does it make any difference to the analysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax the estate by virtue of the testator's place of residence?


title: Case C-216/07: Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-216/07)
   (2007/C 129/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which Directive 2003/110/EC had to be transposed expired on 5 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-240/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-240/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 115/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-240/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.07.2004.


title: Case T-272/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/41

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
   (Case T-272/15)
   (2015/C 245/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 248 278

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2062/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 December 1996 in Case T-235/95 R II: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Interim measures - Interlocutory proceedings - New application - New facts - None)

text:
22 . 2 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/21
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                — take any other measure necessary or which it considers
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  appropriate or equitable,
                      of 11 December 1996
in Case T-235/95 R II: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                 of the European Communities
(Competition — Interim measures — Interlocutory                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  proceedings — New application — New facts — None)
                              97/C 54/34 )
                                                                      The applicant contests the decision declaring illegal the aid
                                                                      which it received under Provincial Law No 25 of the
                (Language of the case: English)                       Province of Bolzano (' the Province') of 8 September 1981
                                                                      on financial assistance for industry inasmuch as, first, it
                                                                      had not been notified prior to its award and, secondly, it
In Case T-235/95 R II : Anthony Goldstein, a medical                  is incompatible with the common market within the
practitioner residing in London , represented by Raymond              meaning of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty. The aid at
St John Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the                  issue consists specifically of six resolutions of the Province
European Communities ( Agent : Richard Lyal ) — further               covering the period from 14 December 1983 to 4 July
application for an interlocutory order for interim measures           1988 relating to 10-years loans granted at a subsidized
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an                rate of interest of 3 % for a total of Lit 25 849 million ,
order on 1 1 December 1996 , the operative part of which              and to capital grants for a total of Lit 22 634 million .
is as follows :
                                                                      The contested decision deems the aid incompatible
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                because , according to the applicant, payment of the loan
                                                                      which constituted the aid took place after the end of
2.   Costs are reserved.                                              validity of Decision 2320/ 81 ( 31 December 1985 ). An
                                                                      aspect which was merely formal thus took on substantive
                                                                      importance because the aid in question was deemed to fall
                                                                      within the scope of the Steel Aid Code which entered into
                                                                      force subsequently (1 January 1986 ). From that point of
                                                                      view, the compatibility of aid granted even 10 years later
                                                                      should be deemed compatible with the legislation in force
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Societa                         at the time when the decision granting it was taken ,
Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA against the Commission of the               irrespective of whether different rules were in force then
                     European Communities                             or that different conditions were extant which justified the
                                                                      granting of aid . The applicant argues that the
                         ( Case T-158/96 )
                                                                      Commission's conduct is in breach of the principles of
                            ( 97/C 54/35 )                            retroactivity of legislation , good faith , legitimate
                                                                      expectations and legal certainty. The Commission has also
                                                                      breached the principle of proportionality, since even if
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      repayment is due, the sacrifice involved for the recipient
                                                                      undertaking would be excessive and disproportionate .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      As regards the lawfulness of the aid with regard to the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                   substance, the applicant maintains that the decision which
1996 by Societa Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, represented by             is the subject-matter of the dispute did not take into
Giulio Macri , of the Milan Bar, Bruno Nascimbene , of the            account the amount or the level of the aid itself, its
Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
                                                                      proportion in relation to the actual needs of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      undertaking, its effects, which do not distort competition
Chambers of Franco Colussi , 36 rue Wiltz .
                                                                      or affect the conditions of trade, or the conformity of
                                                                      those effects with the common objectives laid down in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Decision 2320/81 , which was applicable when the aid in
                                                                      question was granted . In this latter regard the applicant
                                                                      points out the tendency to extend the benefits arising from
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2064 final of                   the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty, thus increasing the
     17 July 1996 ,                                                   consistency between the various Community sub-systems .
— declare non-existent the obligation to repay the State              Finally, the decision is illogical inasmuch as it does not
     aids granted after 1 January 1986 , as provided for in           provide an adequate statement of reasons as regards the
     Article 2 of the contested Decision , and that therefore         determination of the rates of interest .
     no debt has been incurred and, likewise, that no debt
     has been incurred in respect of the interest provided
     for in that Article ,


C 109/40              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.5.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-234/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-31/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 109/72)                                                      (2002/C 109/75)
By order of 22 January 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-234/00 (Reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-31/01: Commission of the
ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s        European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Minister of               and Northern Ireland.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons
Ltd.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-41/01 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-239/00 P (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/76)
                        (2002/C 109/73)
                                                                      By order of 23 November 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-41/01: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
from the register of Case C-239/00 P: Aldo Kuijer v Council of
the European Union.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-85/01 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-449/00 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/77)
                        (2002/C 109/74)
                                                                      By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 7 December 2001 the President of the Court of             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               from the register of Case C-85/01: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-449/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
European Communities v French Republic.                               and Northern Ireland.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                             (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


title: Case T-228/00: Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Porto di Venezia scrl against Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/33
—     Excluding the fishing industry from the de minimis rule,           Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Porto di Venezia
      applicable in cases of State aid, amounts to failure to              scrl against Commission of the European Communities
      observe the principle of equal treatment as between the
      various sectors, at least where, as in the present case, the
      aid relates to social contributions charged by the State for                                 (Case T-228/00)
      the operation of services and not to investment costs
      freely incurred by the undertaking.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/77)
—     The modest scale of the applicant undertakings, their
      local nature and the damage which could be caused by
      repayment of the aid render unsustainable an argument
      claiming that the relief has an impact on trade between                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member States.
—     Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty has been infringed inasmuch         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      as Chioggia and the Lagoon of Venice have special                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      cultural links with fishing that cannot be ignored.                European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Porto di
                                                                         Venezia scrl, represented by Francesco Munari, of the Genoa
                                                                         Bar.
(1) OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999
                                                                               on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of
                                                                               relief from social security contributions under Laws
                                                                               Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul                                Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                               undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
                         (Case T-225/00)                                       and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
                                                                               measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;
                         (2000/C 302/76)
                                                                         —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                               ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
                                                                               the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul,
of Olching (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Christian Boetzkes, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg (Federal Republic
of Germany).
                                                                         The decision being contested in this action is the same as
The applicant claims that the Court should annul, pursuant to            that in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mareazzurro and Others
Article 231 EC, the decision of the Commission of the                    v Commission and T-221/00 Casino Municipale di Venezia
European Communities of 29 May 2000 not to include the                   v Commission (1).
applicant’s name in the list of suitable candidates following the
conclusion of the procedure in open competition
COM/A/12/98, field 01 (law).                                             In support of its application, the applicant, an undertaking
                                                                         entrusted by the public authorities with running the berthing
                                                                         facilities at the port of Venice, makes the following claims:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 7(2)
The applicant took part in the European Commission’s open
                                                                               of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
competition COM/A/12/98 in the field of law and was not
                                                                               1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
awarded the necessary marks in order for her name to be
                                                                               Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2).
included in the list of suitable candidates. By her claim, she
asserts that the marks awarded cannot be justified. On the
contrary, she proved to a sufficient standard in the tests that          —     Misuse of powers inasmuch as a manifest error has been
she possessed the requisite knowledge and abilities.                           committed and treating it differently cannot be justified.
                                                                         —     Failure to state reasons.
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
In particular, the applicant claims that:                                 —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                                ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
—    the assessment of the aid granted by the Italian authorities               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     to municipal undertakings should not have been carried                     the applicant.
     out without assessing the role played by other undertak-
     ings active in the self-same sector — port services — the
     nature and purpose of which is absolutely identical with             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those which the Commission accepts in respect of the
     municipal undertakings mentioned by the Commune di
     Venezia and, in particular, Panfido SpA, entrusted with              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
     running ships’ towage services in the port of Venice.                Case T-228/00 Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Porto di Venezia v
                                                                          Commission (1).
—    the applicant is entrusted by the public authorities with
     the running of a service in the general public interest as a
     monopoly and without any impact on intra-Community                   (1) Not yet published.
     trade. Accordingly, the measures granted to it are evi-
     dently required and necessary for the accomplishment of
     the task with which it has been entrusted.
(1) Not yet published.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-237/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/79)
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo Ormeggia-
tori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l. against Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Case T-229/00)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 302/78)                                   8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by Pierre Legros, of the Brussels Bar, and Stéphane
                                                                          Rodrigues, of the Paris Bar.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Euro-
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo                                pean Parliament dated 18 July 2000;
Ormeggiatori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l., represented
by Sergio Maria Carbone and Alberto Taramasso, of the Genoa
Bar.                                                                      —     declare that the European Community has incurred non-
                                                                                contractual liability on account of the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the Parliament to pay to the applicant the arrears
                                                                                of salary and pension due to him since 15 July 2000,
—    annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999                          together with interest on all those arrears at the annual
     on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of                           rate of 10 %;
     relief from social security contributions under Laws
     Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
     Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find            —     award the applicant damages on account of the non-
                                                                                material damage caused by the contested decision, in a
     themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                                sum amounting to 250 000 euro;
     undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
     and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
     measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana, Spain): Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Doctors in primary health care teams — Average period of work — Inclusion of time on call — Night workers and shift workers)

text:
C 335/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
—     the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods         EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 54 EC and 55 EC) and Council
      of both full-time and part-time training in specialised medicine       Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed
      is binding only in respect of the medical specialties which are        provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of
      common to all the Member States or to two or more of them              activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council                 processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual             (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ, English Special Edition
      recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal     1963-1964, p. 148) — the Court, composed of:
      qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the       G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to        D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
      provide services;                                                      (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
—     that obligation is binding only if the conditions for full-time        General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      training set out in point 1 of the annex to Directive 75/363,          has given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has
      as amended by Directive 82/76, or those for part-time training,        ruled:
      set out in point 2 of the annex to Directive 75/363, as
      amended by Directive 82/76, are complied with by the trainee           Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
      medical specialists;                                                   and Article 4 of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964
—     that obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so        laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in
      far as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit     respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      from the system of mutual recognition established by Directive         processing industries failing within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      75/362, that his training be full-time or part-time and                (Industry and small craft industries) preclude rules of a Member State
      remunerated;                                                           which make the carrying out on its territory of skilled trade work by
                                                                             providers of services established in other Member States subject to an
—     that obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national       authorisation procedure which is likely to delay or complicate exercise
      court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate         of the right to freedom to provide services, where examination of the
      remuneration or the level thereof.                                     conditions governing access to the activities concerned has been carried
                                                                             out and it has been established that those conditions are satisfied.
The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of       Furthermore, any requirement of entry on the trades register of the
national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret        host Member State, assuming it was justified, should neither give rise
them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of       to additional administrative expense nor entail compulsory payment
that directive.                                                              of subscriptions to the chamber of trades.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.                                                   (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 3 October 2000
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
in Case C-58/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             in Case C-303/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Amtsgericht Heinsberg): Proceedings against Josef
                                                                             from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
                              Corsten (1)
                                                                             Valenciana, Spain): Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia
(Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —                        Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de
Skilled services in the building trade — National rules                                         la Generalidad Valenciana (1)
requiring foreign skilled trade undertakings to be entered on
              the trades register — Proportionality)                         (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                             workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope
                           (2000/C 335/30)                                   — Doctors in primary health care teams — Average period
                                                                             of work — Inclusion of time on call — Night workers and
                                                                                shift workers)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/31)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-58/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Amtsgericht                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Local Court) Heinsberg, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                                    in the European Court Reports)
the proceedings pending before that court against Josef Corsten
— on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                 In Case C-303/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
after amendment, Article 49 EC), Articles 60, 65 and 66 of the               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Superior
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 335/17
de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (High Court of                       6.    In the absence of national provisions transposing Article 16(2)
Justice of the Valencia Autonomous Community), Spain for a                        of Directive 93/104 or, as the case may be, expressly adopting
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         one of the derogations provided for in Article 17(2), (3) and
court between Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública                         (4) thereof, those provisions may be interpreted as having direct
(Simap) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generali-                      effect, and therefore they confer on individuals a right whereby
dad Valenciana — on the interpretation of Council Directive                       the reference period for the implementation of the maximum
89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures                        duration of their weekly working time must not exceed 12
to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers                     months.
at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) and Council Directive 93/104/EC
of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) —                       7.    The consent given by trade-union representatives in the context
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                      of a collective or other agreement is not equivalent to that given
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                             by the worker himself, as provided for in the first indent of
L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-                  Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104.
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    An activity such as that of doctors in primary health care teams
      falls within the scope of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
      12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
      improvements in the safety and health of workers at work
      and Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
      concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    The national court may, in the absence of express measures                                       (Fifth Chamber)
      transposing Directive 93/104, apply its domestic law to the
      extent to which, having regard to the characteristics of the
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
      activity of doctors in primary health care teams, that law meets
      the conditions laid down in Article 17 of that directive.
                                                                            in Case C-380/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v H.M.
3.    Time spent on call by doctors in primary health care teams                                          Treasury (1)
      must be regarded in its entirety as working time, and where
      appropriate as overtime, within the meaning of Directive
      93/104 if they are required to be at the health centre. If they       (Public contracts — Procedure for the award of public
      must merely be contactable at all times when on call, only time       contracts for services, supplies and works — Contracting
      linked to the actual provision of primary health care services                   authority — Body governed by public law)
      must be regarded as working time.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/32)
4.    Doctors in primary health care teams who are regularly on call
      at night may not be regarded as night workers by virtue of                                 (Language of the case: English)
      Article 2 (4) (b) of Directive 93/104 alone. Whether national
      legislation on night work by workers whose employment is
      governed by private law may be applied to doctors in primary          In Case C-380/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      health care teams, whose employment is governed by public             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
      law, is a question to be resolved by the national court in            Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
      accordance with its domestic law.                                     isional Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
                                                                            and H.M. Treasury, ex parte: University of Cambridge — on
                                                                            the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
5.    Work performed by doctors in primary health care teams whilst         of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
      on call constitutes shift work and such doctors are shift workers     the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
      within the meaning of Article 2(5) and (6) of Directive               Article 1 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      93/104.                                                               coordinating procedures for the award of public supply


title: Case T-121/10: Action brought on 11 March 2010 — Conte and Others v Council

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/43

         Action brought on 11 March 2010 — Conte and Others v Council
   (Case T-121/10)
   2010/C 134/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Conte (Pomezia, Italy), Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl (Civitanova Marche, Italy), Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc (Termoli, Italy), Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl (Civitanova Marche, Italy), Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) (Manfredonia, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavasola, G. Micucci and V. Cannizzaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested regulation.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants in the present case all operate in the fisheries sector and are subject to the obligations laid down in the contested regulation.
   In support of their claims, the applicants put forward the following grounds:

               1.

               Articles 9(2) and (3) and 10(1) and (2) of the contested regulation are invalid in so far as those provisions lay down an unconditional obligation for fishing vessels over 15 metres to be equipped with a double monitoring system: a satellite tracking system, provided for in Article 9, and, in addition, an automatic ship identification system. These are two different monitoring systems which essentially have the same function. No adequate reasons are given for that obligation. The obligation also appears to be in breach of the principle of proportionality, in this case as regards the need for and appropriateness of the measure. Moreover, the obligation to be equipped with a double monitoring system represents a financial burden for the applicants which is unjustified and unreasonable.

               2.

               Articles 15 and 17 of the contested regulation are invalid in so far as those provisions lay down an obligation for fishing vessels of 12 metres’ length or more to provide certain information on a daily basis and, in any event, before entry to port, or even four hours before entry to port. According to the applicants, that obligation is unreasonable, disproportionate and even incapable of being fulfilled. Especially for vessels engaged in small scale fishing in fishing zones located at a distance of a few hours’ navigation from ports, it would be impossible to comply with that obligation, unless the vessels were to remain stuck outside the port until the time periods in question have elapsed.

               3.

               The system of surveillance and inspections is invalid in so far as the contested regulation lays down an unconditional obligation to grant access to rooms of the vessel and to files and electronic documents and to submit to forms of inspection and questioning by officers who are to operate without any authorisation from the judicial authorities and are not subject to any control by police bodies. The rights to confidentiality, home-life and privacy and the right of defence in their various forms would thus be infringed. Such control, as well as infringing the various basic rights referred to above, would ultimately, as a result of its intrusive nature, deprive of all substance the right of fisheries operators to exercise an economic freedom, guaranteed by the founding Treaties. A specific ground of invalidity relates to Article 82, which gives the inspection officers the power to take protective measures in relation to evidence of possible infringements.

               4.

               Article 73(8) of the contested regulation is invalid in so far as that provision provides for the freedom for Member States to make fisheries operators liable for the financial burden of the surveillance system. It is submitted in this connection that that provision is clearly invalid because it is at odds with the principle of social distribution of expenditure necessary for the furtherance of public interests.

               5.

               Article 92 of the contested regulation is invalid in so far as that provision provides for a system of transferring liability for any infringement, so that, irrespective of who is responsible, it ultimately lies with the owner of the fishing vessel and any assignees. It is submitted in this regard that that provision is contrary to the principle that liability should be imputed only to the person responsible, the principle of the protection of the right to private property and the principle of proportionality, since it is not directed, from any rational perspective, at preventing circumvention of the sanctions regime.

               6.

               Article 103 of the contested regulation is invalid in so far as that provision provides that, where a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under the regulation itself, that can lead to the financial assistance provided under Regulation 1198/2006 (1) and Regulation 861/2006 (2) being suspended. The suspension of the aid entails a transfer of liability from the State to the individuals, who are thus made to bear the adverse consequences of the State’s conduct. That form of transfer of sanctions infringes the principle that punishment should be applied only to the offender and the principle of proportionality.

               7.

               Article 14(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), Article 17(1), Article 58(1), (2), (3) and (5), Article 59(2) and (3), Article 60(4) and (5), Article 62(1), Article 63(1), Article 64, Article 65, Article 66(1) and (3), Article 67(1) and Article 68 of the contested regulation are invalid. The applicants submit in this connection that the regulation is based only on Article 37 TEC, which permits the establishment of a common fisheries policy, and that the measures contained in the regulation are lawful only if they relate to the fisheries policy established by the Community institutions in various acts. However, the provisions referred to above do not relate to sectors or species which are governed by the common fisheries policy and therefore fall outside the scope of Article 37 TEC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea.


29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 156/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-34/01 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-37/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 156/72)                                                          (2002/C 156/73)
                   (Language of the Case: French)                                          (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 15 April 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 14 March 2002 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-34/01: Anna              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Maria Roccato v Commission of the European Communities.                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                         T-37/01: Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd v Office for Harmon-
                                                                         isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-8/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-8/13)
   2013/C 63/24
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


C 101/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
       Member State which, in response to the infringement by                      particular, to provide an opportunity for persons involved
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure                        in an action subsequently brought before the civil courts
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on                        — those considering bringing such an action, those who
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members                   anticipate that the action will be brought against them,
       and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and                  or third parties otherwise concerned by such an action
       a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,                   — to obtain advance clarification of the facts (with which
       whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment                   they are perhaps not entirely familiar), so as to enable
       upon complaint being made, together with more serious                       them better to assess their position, particularly also with
       and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements               regard to the issue of identification of the party against
       occasioning loss to members and creditors?                                  whom proceedings must be instituted?
                                                                             —     If so, can the provision in that case constitute a measure
( 1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-                     within the meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Conven-
     ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests           tion?
     of members and others, are required by Member States of
     companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of
     Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
     equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
     Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
( 2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
     Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
     types of companies (OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11).
( 3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on
     the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ
     L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1).                                                      Removal from the register of Case C-435/01 ( 1)
( 4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/
     EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those                                       (2003/C 101/51)
     Directives (OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60).
                                                                             By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-435/01: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by order of that Court of 12 December 2002                         (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV against Unibel
                              Exser BVBA
                            (Case C-104/03)
                            (2003/C 101/50)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-324/02 ( 1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                (2003/C 101/52)
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amster-
dam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam) of 12 December
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of St Paul Dairy Industries NV
against Unibel Exser BVBA on the following questions:                        By order of 10 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
—      Does the provision in Article 186 et seq. of the Nether-              from the register of Case C-324/02: Commission of the
       lands Code of Civil Procedure concerning the ‘preliminary             European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
       hearing of witnesses prior to the bringing of proceedings’
       come within the scope of the Brussels Convention in light
       of the fact also that, as provided for in that legislation, it        (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
       seeks not only to enable material evidence to be taken
       from witnesses shortly after the facts in dispute and to
       prevent evidence from being lost but also, and in


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Bundesrepublik Deutschland v ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG, and Others (Telecommunications services — Directive 97/13/EC — Article 11(2) — Charge for the allocation of new telephone numbers — Stock of numbers available free of charge to the undertaking succeeding the former monopoly)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Bundesrepublik Deutschland v ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG, and Others (1)

   (Telecommunications services - Directive 97/13/EC - Article 11(2) - Charge for the allocation of new telephone numbers - Stock of numbers available free of charge to the undertaking succeeding the former monopoly)
   (2005/C 315/05)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03: two references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decisions of 30 April 2003, received at the Court on 28 July 2003, in the proceedings between Bundesrepublik Deutschland and ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG, represented by ISIS Multimedia Net Verwaltungs GmbH (C-327/03), Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH und Co. OHG (C-328/03) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides that a new operator on the telecommunications market is required to pay a charge in respect of the allocation of telephone numbers taking account of their economic value, even though a telecommunications undertaking having a dominant position on the same market took over free of charge the very large stock of numbers which were available to its predecessor, the former monopoly, and national law precludes retrospective payment of such a charge in respect of that stock.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.