title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-238/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne): Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Ministre de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité (Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Community national holding an Argentine diploma recognised by the authorities of a Member State as equivalent in that State to a university degree in medicine and surgery — Obligations of another Member State with respect to an application to practise medicine on its territory)

text:
25.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 335/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                        of 14 September 2000
                                                                            in Case C-343/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-238/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   from the Pretore di Pinerolo): Renato Collino, Luisella
the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne):                                        Chiappero v Telecom Italia SpA (1)
Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Ministre de l’Emploi et de la
                              Solidarité (1)                                (Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding employees’ rights
                                                                            in the event of transfers of undertakings — Transfer of an
(Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                 entity managed by a public body forming part of the State
43 EC) — Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Community                            administration to a private company whose capital is publicly
national holding an Argentine diploma recognised by the                     owned — Definition of an employee — Taking into account
authorities of a Member State as equivalent in that State to                    of employees’ total length of service by the transferee)
a university degree in medicine and surgery — Obligations
of another Member State with respect to an application to                                               (2000/C 335/06)
                  practise medicine on its territory)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2000/C 335/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-343/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Pinerolo, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                     in the European Court Reports)                         pending before that judge between Renato Collino, Luisella
                                                                            Chiappero and Telecom Italia SpA — on the interpretation of
In Case C-238/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne, France, for a prelimi-               the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                    of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977
between Hugo Fernando Hocsman and Ministre de l’Emploi et                   L 61, p. 26) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
de la Solidarité on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — the Court                    C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                   Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,              which it has ruled:
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in                    1.    Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
which it has ruled:                                                               1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                                relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
                                                                                transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)                 be interpreted as meaning that that directive may apply to a
is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in a situation not                    situation in which an entity operating telecommunications
regulated by a directive on mutual recognition of diplomas, a                     services for public use and managed by a public body within the
Community national applies for authorisation to practise a profession             State administration is, following decisions of the public
access to which depends, under national law, on the possession of a               authorities, the subject of a transfer for value, in the form of an
diploma or professional qualification, or on periods of practical                 administrative concession, to a private-law company established
experience, the competent authorities of the Member State concerned               by another public body which holds its entire capital. The
must take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other             persons concerned by such a transfer must, however, originally
evidence of formal qualifications of the person concerned and his                 have been protected as employees under national employment
relevant experience, by comparing the specialised knowledge and                   law.
abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the
knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.                2.    The first paragraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 must
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the rights of a
                                                                                financial nature attached, in the transferee’s business, to
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                        employees’ length of service, such as a termination payment or
                                                                                salary increases, the transferee must take into account the entire
                                                                                length of service, in both his employment and that of the
                                                                                transferor, of the employees transferred, in so far as his


title: Case F-41/15 DISS I: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 November 2015 — FL, FM and FO v CEPOL
   (Case F-41/15 DISS I)
   (2015/C 429/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 1 September 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG (Case C-314/97)

text:
C 331/12              r EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 against the
                                                                         judgment delivered on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate                   Communities in Case T- 156/95 between Diego Echauz
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 Brigaldi, José Luis Buendia Sierra, César Montoliu Garcia,
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC                María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,
     of 22 November 1994 (') on common rules and                         Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,
     standards for ship inspection and survey organizations              Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María
     and     for    the     relevant   activities   of    maritime       Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego
     administrations, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil          González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín, Julio
     its obligations under that directive and under the                  Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray and
     Treaty,                                                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-315/97 P)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                                        ( 97/C 331/22 )
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 July 1997
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in Case T-156/95 between
                                                                         Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis Buendia Sierra, Cesar
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, whereby a directive is                     Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen
binding upon each Member State to which it is addressed                  Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel
as to the result to be achieved, requires Member States to               Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia
comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in               Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen
the directive . In respect of the directive cited in the                 Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Commission's pleadings, that time-limit expired on                       Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo
31 December 1995 without the Italian Republic having                     Fabra Utray and the Commission of the European
taken the necessary measures to comply.                                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities on 12 September 1997 by
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994, p. 20.                                    Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria
                                                                         Jesus Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Maria
                                                                         Carmen Labrador Rubio, and Leopoldo Fabray Utray,
                                                                         represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, Abogado, with an
                                                                         address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
                                                                         B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, Brussels
                                                                         B-1050 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
1 September 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des                 — declare the present appeal brought by the above
freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer                          officials to be admissible and well-founded,
                 Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the CFI of 9 July 1997 in
                          (Case C-3 14/97)                                    Case T-156/95 ('),
                            ( 97/C 331/21 )                              — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities by an order of the                           — Manifest error of interpretation and application of the
Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna )                       Community legislation in force, specifically of opinion
of 1 September 1997, which was received at the Court                         201 /92 of the Board of Heads of Administration
Registry on 11 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling                       ( applied by way of the Commission's internal circular
in the case of Verein zur Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs                    of 24 January 1992 ), of Article 128 ( b ) of the Protocol
im Medienwesen v. Heinrich Bauer Spezialzeitschriften                         on Privileges and Immunities of the European
Verlag KG on the following question :                                         Communities         and     of  Article 20 of   the    Staff
                                                                              Regulations of Officials of the European Communities :
                                                                             the Court of First Instance has not taken account of
Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             the fact that an official who legitimately wishes to
precluding application of legislation of Member State A                       maintain his official residence in Spain has no choice
prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B                      but to travel to his country of origin in order to
from selling in Member State A a periodically published                      exercise his right to vote .
magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in                  — Discrimination.
Member State B ?
                                                                         (') OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 27.


title: Case C-482/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n °2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco SA v José Hidalgo Rueda and Others
   (Case C-482/13)
   2013/C 352/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unicaja Banco SA

      Defendants: José Hidalgo Rueda, María del Carmen Vega Martín, Gestión Patrimonial Hive, S.L., Francisco Antonio López Reina, Rosa María Hidalgo Vega

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-248/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Autobedrĳf Diepenmaat V.O.F. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 6/33
Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Marie-Laurence                     — Breach by the Commission of its obligation concerning the
Buisson against the Commission of the European Com-                          time-limit and the manner of correction of the alleged
                            munities                                         error in its letter of 30 April 1999.
                                                                        — Breach of the principle of good administration arising
                         (Case T-243/99)                                     from the Commission’s failure to take every care to ensure
                                                                             that the letter which it alleged was sent to the applicant on
                                                                             5 May 1999 actually reached its intended destination.
                          (2000/C 6/58)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Marie-                       Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
Laurence Buisson, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC at the             Diepenmaat V.O.F. against the Commission of the Euro-
Scots Bar, Elisabethann Wright, Barrister of the Inn of Court                                    pean Communities
of Northern Ireland, Fiona M. Murray, Barrister of the Middle
Temple, and Fredrik Lindblom, Biträdande Jurist, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître                                        (Case T-248/99)
Aloyse May, 31 Grand rue, BP 144.
                                                                                (2000/C 6/59)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
— annul the decision of the Commission of July 13, 1999
    rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her exclusion from
    the written tests in Open Competition COM/A/10/98;                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
— award pecuniary damages in the sum of BEF 100 000;                    Diepenmaat V.O.F., of Borne (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        H.W. Kesler, of the Enschede Bar, with an address for service
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of K. Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue
                                                                        Charles Martel.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
The purpose of the action is to challenge the legality of a                  of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
decision by the Commission rejecting an appeal by the                        Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
applicant against her exclusion from the second stage of the                 Germany;
selection procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98. In
support of her case, the applicant puts forward the following           (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
pleas in law:
— Breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that she             Pleas in law and main arguments
    would be invited to participate in the written tests. That
    expectation is clearly established by the Commission’s
                                                                        This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant claims,
    letter of 30 April 1999. According to the applicant, given
                                                                        inter alia, that the Commission has misinterpreted the terms
    that Point IV.5 of the Notice of Competition provided that
    a list of those candidates who had fulfilled the basic              ‘undertaking’ and ‘aid’ in assuming that aid granted by the
                                                                        authorities and aid granted by a private individual are so similar
    conditions for admission and obtained a mark which was
    one of the 200 highest in the pre-selection tests would             in nature that the matter necessarily involves cumulation in
    be drawn up and that Point VIII.5 provided that those               accordance with the de minimis rule.
    candidates would be admitted to the written tests. the letter
    could only be interpreted as meaning that she was among
    the 200 candidates to be admitted to the written tests and          (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    that the Commission was checking to ensure that her
    application fulfilled the basic conditions for admission laid
    down in Point III of the Notice of Competition.


title: Case C-160/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part — Most-favoured-nation clause — Direct effect — Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
   (Case C-160/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 - Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part - Most-favoured-nation clause - Direct effect - Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)
   2010/C 179/20
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part (OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1) — Most-favoured-nation clause — Right of an individual seeking the refund of domestic tax to rely on the agreement in order to demonstrate the tax’s incompatibility with the agreement — Banana import regime

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-49/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Unibet International Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 January 2016 — Unibet International Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala
   (Case C-49/16)
   (2016/C 136/20)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unibet International Limited

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Hivatala

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a national measure in accordance with which the legislation of a Member State which, at the time of issue of a call for tenders for the award of a concession or of acceptance of a tender submitted in order to obtain such a concession, as the case may be, guarantees the theoretical possibility that any operator fulfilling the legal requirements — including an operator established in another Member State — may obtain the concession for the provision of non-liberalised online games of chance, by virtue either of a public call for tenders or of the submission of a tender, with the result that the Member State in question is not actually calling for tenders for the award of the concession and the service provider likewise, in practice, has no opportunity of submitting a tender, and yet the authorities of the Member State declare that the service provider infringed legal rules by providing the service without holding a licence based on the concession and impose on that provider the administrative penalty provided for in the legislation (temporary blocking of access and the imposition of a fine in the event of repeated infringements)?

               2.

               Does Article 56 TFEU prevent a Member State from introducing provisions of higher rank, from the point of view of domestic law, that offer operators of online games of chance the theoretical possibility of providing online games of chance on a cross-border basis, with the result that, for want of any lower-ranking implementing provisions in the Member State, those operators cannot in fact obtain the administrative licences necessary for the provision of the service?

               3.

               In so far as the court hearing the main proceedings may declare, in the light of the answers given to the foregoing questions, that the Member State’s measure is contrary to Article 56 TFEU, is that court acting in a manner compatible with EU law if it considers to be contrary to Article 56 TFEU not only the infringement of legal rules found by the decisions of the authorities of the Member State, on the ground that the service was provided without a licence, but also the administrative penalty imposed for that infringement (temporary blocking of access and fine)?


10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-12/96 (1)              removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (reference for a
                         (98/C 312/19)                            preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin): VR-
                                                                  Leasing GmbH v. Margit Bertram.
By order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
removal from the register of Case C-12/96: Portuguese
Republic v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-351/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/23)
                                                                  By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-39/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/20)                            removal from the register of Case C-351/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Court of             Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-39/98: Commission of          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
the European Communities v. Silena SpA.
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/24)
      Removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (1)              By order of 13 July 1998 the President of the Court of
                         (98/C 312/21)                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (reference for
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of             a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bre-
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               scia): Criminal proceedings against Riccardo Piccaluga.
removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (reference for
a preliminiary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ente         (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Genova v. Ministero
delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-297/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/25)
                                                                  By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/22)                            removal from the register of Case C-297/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2000 in Case C-134/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): IGI — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Fazenda Pública (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Charges for entries in a national register of legal persons — Duties paid by way of fees or dues)

text:
C 335/14                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           25.11.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     4.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
                                                                                85/303, creates rights on which individuals may rely in
                                                                                proceedings before the national courts.
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 26 September 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
in Case C-134/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): IGI —
     Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Fazenda Pública (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Charges for entries in a national register of legal
          persons — Duties paid by way of fees or dues)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2000/C 335/26)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: Portugese)
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                         in Case C-408/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
In Case C-134/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) for a                 Directives 94/55/EC and 96/86/EC — Failure to transpose
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                            into national law within the period prescribed)
court between IGI — Investimentos Imobiliários SA and
Fazenda Pública in the presence of: Ministério Público — on
the interpretation of Articles 4, 10 and 12(1) of Council                                                 (2000/C 335/27)
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969
(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                                      (Language of the case: English)
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and                   In Case C-408/99: Commission of the European Communities
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) —
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in                     application for a declaration that by failing to adopt the laws,
which it has ruled:                                                          regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                             with Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November 1994 on
1.     Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning               the approximation of the laws of the Member States with
       indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council       regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road (OJ
       Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted             1994 L 319, p. 7) and Commission Directive 96/86/EC of
       as meaning that charges, such as those at issue in the main           13 December 1996 adapting to technical progress Directive
       proceedings, which are levied for entering an increase in the         94/55 (OJ 1996 L 335, p. 43), or in any event by failing to
       share capital of a capital company in a national register of legal    inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed
       persons constitute a tax for the purposes of the directive.           to fulfil its obligations under those Directives — the Court
                                                                             (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
2.     Charges payable for entering an increase in the share capital of      Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
       a capital company in a national register of legal persons are,        teur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;
       where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September
       69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, in principle                  2000, in which it:
       prohibited under Article 10(c) thereof.
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed
3.     ‘Fees or dues’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive          the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
       69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, do not cover                        comply with Council Directive 94/55/EC of 21 November
       charges levied for entering an increase in the share capital of a           1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
       capital company in a national register of legal persons, such as            with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road
       the charges at issue in the main proceedings, the amount of                 and Commission Directive 96/86/EC of 13 December 1996
       which increases in direct proportion to the share capital raised            adapting to technical progress Directive 94/55, Ireland has
       and in respect of which there is no upper limit.                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives;


title: Case C-207/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di Firenze by order of that court of 23 January 2001 in the case of Altair Chimica SpA against ENEL Distribuzione SpA

text:
C 200/54               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14.7.2001
      which there is no unequivocal correlation has the effect          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commer-
      of increasing the risk of confusion and classification            cial Court) of 13 November 2000, which was received at the
      errors. A Member State may not plead the mere concept             Court Registry on 30 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
      of ‘national management’ in order to be authorised to             the case of Joseph Lennox (trading as R. Lennox & Son) against
      derogate from the applicable Community legislation,               Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine, on the following questions:
      inasmuch as there is no way of telling how the manage-
      ment of waste in Luxembourg relates to ‘specific needs’
      which are not covered by the relevant Community rules.
                                                                        1.    (a)  Where a consignment of sheep is exported from one
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.                                                  Member State to another Member State and the
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991.                                                          sheep are for slaughter on arrival, is the requirement
(3) OJ L 5 of 7.1.1994, p. 15.                                                     under Article 9 of Directive 91/68/EEC (1) complied
                                                                                with where the accompanying health certificate is
                                                                                not a Model I certificate, as in Annex E thereof, but
                                                                                is a Model II certificate?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
di Firenze by order of that court of 23 January 2001 in                       (b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is No, so that the
the case of Altair Chimica SpA against ENEL Distribuzione                          consignment must be accompanied only by a Mo-
                                SpA                                                del I certificate, does the responsibility for identifying
                                                                                the correct certificate prior to export rest on the
                                                                                exporter or on the recipient of the sheep, or is it for
                         (Case C-207/01)                                           the applicable national law of the contract to
                                                                                determine which party bears this responsibility?
                         (2001/C 200/96)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
                                                                              (c)  Where a consignment of sheep is exported from one
(Court of Appeal), Florence, by order of 23 January 2001,
                                                                                Member State to another Member State and the
received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a
                                                                                sheep are for slaughter on arrival and where the
preliminary ruling in the case of Altair Chimica SpA v ENEL
                                                                                accompanying health certificate is a Model II certifi-
Distribuzione SpA on the exact interpretation of Articles 81,
                                                                                cate, is the national law of the State of destination
82 and 85 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
                                                                                entitled to make the importation unlawful on the
of Directive 92/12/EEC (1) and Council Recommendation
                                                                                ground that the certificate is not a Model I certificate?
81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981, in order to ascertain whether
the provisions of national law laid down in Legislative Decrees
No 347/44 and No 896/47, Presidential Decree No 373/94,
Legislative Decree No 98/48 and Law No 9/91 are incompat-
ible with those provisions of Community law.                            2.    (a)  In July 1997, was it compatible with Community
                                                                                law, in particular Articles 28-30 EC (ex Articles 30-
                                                                                36) and/or Article 152 EC (ex 129 of the EC Treaty)
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                 and/or Articles 6 and 174 EC (from ex 130r of the
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the                    EC Treaty) and Council Directives 89/662/EEC (2),
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
    L 76, of 23 March 1992, p. 1).
                                                                                90/425/EEC (3) and 91/68/EEC, for a Member State
                                                                                to require that the health certificates required pursu-
                                                                                ant to Article 9 of Directive 91/68/EEC include the
                                                                                following declaration: ‘The animals referred to in
                                                                                this certificate were born and raised on farms
                                                                                in which no case of Transmissible Spongiform
                                                                                Encephalopathy (TSE) has been registered in the last
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                               6 years.’?
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Commercial Court), by order of that court of 13 Novem-
ber 2000, in the case of Joseph Lennox (trading as
R. Lennox & Son) against Industria Lavorazione Carni                          (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is No, where the
                               Ovine                                               exporter has otherwise fulfilled its obligations under
                                                                                the applicable law of the contract to deliver the
                         (Case C-220/01)                                           sheep to the recipient’s place of business, is a
                                                                                national court required, in civil proceedings between
                         (2001/C 200/97)                                           the exporter and the recipient concerning their
                                                                                contractual rights and obligations regarding the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             importation of the sheep, to ignore any obligations
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                              under the national law of the Member State of


title: Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-24/99)

text:
C 86/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
consequences provided for in Law No 88 of 16 March                      control of goods originating outside French territory, and
1988 (2)?                                                               thus constitute measures which are applicable with
                                                                        distinction' within the meaning of the Court's case-law.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 176.
                                                                        Having regard to their nature and purpose, the provisions
(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 69 of               at issue do not constitute an appropriate instrument for
    23.3.1988, Vol. V, p. 2469.                                         guaranteeing the safety of purchasers of spare parts for
                                                                        motor vehicles; moreover, the French authorities have
                                                                        produced no evidence showing that the goods withheld
                                                                        did in fact involve a risk to the safety and life of
                                                                        individuals. In any event, Article 36 of the Treaty cannot
                                                                        be relied on by a Member State with a view to protecting
                                                                        interests located on the territory of another Member State.
Action brought on 2 February 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-23/99)                                 The exclusive right conferred on the proprietor of rights in
                                                                        a design encompasses the manufacture and marketing of
                         (1999/C 86/19)                                 the goods in question on the national territory, and,
                                                                        having regard to the principle of the territoriality of
                                                                        industrial property rights, it cannot have the effect of
An action against the French Republic was brought before                protecting those rights on markets other than the national
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     market. The mere transit through French territory of
2 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                       goods which have not been manufactured there and which
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                         are not intended to be marketed there does not in itself
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a                constitute an infringement of the exclusive right,
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,              recognised under French law, held by the proprietor of the
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                        rights in a design.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
Ð declare that, by implementing, pursuant to the Code                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic
     de la ProprieÂteÂ Intellectuelle (Intellectual Property                                     of Germany
     Code), procedures for the retention by the customs                                        (Case C-24/99)
     authorities of goods legally manufactured in a
     Member State of the European Community which are                                          (1999/C 86/20)
     intended, following their transit through French
     territory, to be placed on the market in another
     Member State where they may be legally marketed,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;                                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Götz zur
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           Hausen, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     C 254, Kirchberg.
Infringement of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty: the
legality, under Community law, of the retention by the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
customs authorities in France of spare parts for motor
vehicles which have been manufactured in Spain and are
intended for the Italian market must be assessed solely by              1. Declare that, by providing, in Paragraph 3 of and
reference to the provisions of Articles 30 to 36 of the                     point 8 in the Annex to the Gesetz über die Umwelt-
Treaty, concerning the free movement of goods, since there                  verträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on the assessment of
has not yet been any harmonisation at Community level of                    effects on the environment) of 12 February 1990, in
the conditions and detailed rules governing the protection                  Paragraph 17 of the Fernstrassengesetz (Law on trunk
of designs for such parts. The French legislative provisions                roads) of 14 April 1994 and in Paragraph 8 of the
at issue in the present case concern the conferment on the                  Luftverkehrsgesetz (Law on air traffic) of 17 December,
French customs authorities of a power which they may                        that projects are in certain circumstances to be exempt
exercise in the context of the controls carried out by them.                from the obligation to carry out assessments of their
Those provisions specifically relate, therefore, to the                     effects on the environment, the Federal Republic of
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/11
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of
     Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive                          animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1), the
     85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of                  Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     the effects of certain public and private projects on the            under the EC Treaty and that directive.
     environment.
                                                                     2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case-20/1999 (2).
Acording to the German legislative provisions referred to            (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
in 1., it is possible, in the circumstances described therein,       (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
to implement projects relating to road construction and
airports which are subject, as projects covered by Annex I
to the directive, to assessment of their effects on the
environment, without any procedure for the official
approval of the plans Ð and thus without any assessment
of their effects on the environment. Under the German
legislation, assessment of environmental effects may be              Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
dispensed with where the public interest is not affected             the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and where, moreover, the rights of third parties are not                                         Luxembourg
affected or where a form of contract has been concluded                                        (Case C-26/99)
with the legal owners of the land with a view to the
implementation of the projects in question. By contrast,                                       (1999/C 86/22)
the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC are not mentioned
in the national legislation; nor does that legislation take
into account the requirements laid down in the directive.            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.                                       Communities on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                                                                     Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                             Austria                                 that the Court should:
                         (Case C-25/99)
                         (1999/C 86/21)                              Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                          Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                      related to exposure to biological agents at work (1), the
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  obligations under the EC Treaty; and
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     Ð Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189(3)
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           and Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty requires Member States


title: Case T-91/99: Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
C 174/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
The provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz constituted              — take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
general measures of tax law of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which, according to the case-law of the Court of                    Trade mark        con- ‘OPTIONS’           —    Application
Justice, are to be assessed solely on the basis of Article 67 of             cerned:                  No 128611
the ECSC Treaty, not of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or the               Product or service:      insurance, warranty, financing,
steel aid code.                                                                                hire-purchase and lease-purchase
The tax provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz were                     Decision contested refusal of registration by the exam-
always duly notified to the Commission in accordance with                    before the Board of iner
Article 93 of the EEC Treaty and were approved by the                        Appeal:
Commission throughout the period when that law was in                        Pleas in law relied on: — Article 7(2) does not itself pro-
force. Nor were any objections raised under Article 67(2) of                                              vide grounds for refusal but
the ECSC Treaty.                                                                                merely directs Article 7(1) (b)
                                                                                and (c);
Moreover, the contested decision is based on the provisions of
the steel aid code in force from 1986, which the Commission                                           — distinctiveness         acquired
ought not to have adopted by the procedure under the first                                                through use in a part of the
and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. The                                               Community should enable the
provisions of that code which extended the definition of aid to                                           provisions of Article 7(3) to
include non-specific aid by the Member States should not have                                             apply.
been applied in the present case.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested
decision is founded on a legal basis which is not applicable:
according to Article 9 of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid Code’, it entered
into force only on 1 January 1997, that is, on a date when the
Zonenrandförderungsgesetz had already ceased to exist.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
(1) Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
    establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry
    (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 42).                                                              (Case T-98/99)
(2) Law of 5 August 1971, Bundesgesetzblatt i, p. 1237.
                                                                                (1999/C 174/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     European Communities on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe
                        Market (OHIM)                                    NV/SA, represented by Mr. Tom R. Otervanger, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff
                         (Case T-91/99)                                  Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.
                        (1999/C 174/27)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare, in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                   (Language of the case: English)                           that the Commission has failed to act by not having
                                                                             rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               of time upon the Applicant’s complaint lodged with the
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                 Commission on 8 June 1998;
of the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Ford
Motor Company, having its registered office in Delaware, USA,            — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
represented by Anthony James Tweedale Willoughby, with an                    applicant in the present proceedings;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel.                                      — take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
                                                                             priate.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to refuse
     under Article (1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark            On 8 June 1998, the applicant submitted a formal complaint
     Regulation to register the word ‘OPTIONS’ as a trade mark;          against the German Republic for granting unlawful State aid
                                                                         contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty in connection with the
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market              proposed acquisition by Deutsche Post AG of 22.5 % of the
     to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present           shares of DHL. The applicant assumed that the financing of
     proceedings;                                                        the transaction infringed the said Article of the EC Treaty. The


title: Case T-513/14: Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Green Pack v OHIM (greenpack) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/54

         Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Green Pack v OHIM (greenpack)
   (Case T-513/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 038/71)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GreenPack GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, subsequently by C. Glasemann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Schneider, then by G. Schneider and D. Botis, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R2324/2013-1) relating to an application for registration of the word sign greenpack as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               GreenPack GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 January 1995 on Case T-527/93: O v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Action seeking annulment - Decision suspending payment of remuneration pursuant to Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 54/16          | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 3 . 95
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 29 March 1993                 4. orders the parties in Case T-62/92 to bear their own
     reducing the assistance initially granted to the applicant            costs.
     by the ESF;
                                                                     í 1 ) OJ No C 28 , 5 . 2 . 1992 and OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(!) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 1995
                                                                     on Case T-527/93 : O v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( a )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             (Officials   — Action seeking annulment — Decision
                      of 26 January 1995                             suspendingpayment ofremuneration pursuant to Article 60
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations)
in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte v.
                   European Parliament ( J )                                                      ( 95/C 54/29 )
 (Officials — Revocation of a decision recognizing an
occupational disease — Subsequent adoption of a decision                             (Language of the case: French)
refusing to recognize the occupational disease —
                           Annulment)                                In Case T-527/93 : O, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, represented by Jean-Francois
                          ( 95/C 54/28 )
                                                                     Neven, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue
                (Language of the case: French)                       d'Eich, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Sean van Raepenbusch and Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                     application for the annulment of the Commission decision
In Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte, a              of 23 December 1992 ordering suspension, pursuant to
former official of the European Parliament residing at               Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, of payment of the
Strasbourg (France), represented by Edmond Lebrun and                applicant's remuneration with effect from 1 January 1993
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service      — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du            J.L. Cruz Vila^a, President, H. Kirschner and A.
Fort Rheinsheim. v. European Parliament (Agent: Frangois             Kalogeropoulos,           Judges;     J.     Palacio    Gonzalez,
Vainker) — application, first, for the annulment of the              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 1991 by              26 January 1995 , in which it:
which it retroactively revoked its decision of 24 January
1991 recognizing that the applicant was suffering from an
                                                                     1 . annuls the Commission decision of 23 December 1992
occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the
                                                                           ordering payment of the applicant's remuneration to be
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
and for an order requiring the defendant institution to pay
                                                                           suspended with effect from 1 January 1993;
to him the compensation awarded thereby (Case T-90/91 )              2. orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
and, second, the annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 20 January 1992 by which it refused to
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 299, 5 . 11 . 1993 .
recognize that the applicant was suffering from an
occupational disease and for an order requiring the
defendant institution to pay to him the compensation
provided for in that regard ( Case T-62/92 ) — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.L. Cruz
Vilaga, President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 January 1995 , in which it:                                                               of 26 January 1995
                                                                     in Case T-549/93 : D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (*)
1 . dismisses the claims for relief made in the application in
     Case T-90/91 . The European Parliament is ordered to            (Officials — Disciplinaryproceedings — DisciplinaryBoard
     pay to the applicant compensation for non-material                            — Inquiry — Sexual harassment)
     damage in the sum of Bfrs 200 000;                                                             95/C 54/30)
2. dismisses the application in Case T-62/92;                                        (Language of the case: French)
3 . orders the European Parliament in Case T-90/91 to bear          In Case T-549/93 : D, a former official of the Commission of
     its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs of the       the European Communities, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
     applicant, who is consequently to bear three quarters of       the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     his own costs;                                                 at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Correctionnel d'Arlon, Belgium): André Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC — Guaranteed minimum wage)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/19
1.    Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require          and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity       Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
      produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources        EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
      at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that         (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
      type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden     J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators       has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)       ruled:
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).
                                                                            Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
2.    In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity      and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
      market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30          a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).               Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
                                                                            to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
                                                                            rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
                                                                            of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
                                                                            carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
                                                                            work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
                                                                            than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
                                                                            for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
                                                                            whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
                                                                            imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
                                                                            proportionate in order to ensure the protection of the workers
                                                                            concerned.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
    Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of                                                (Fifth Chamber)
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
                 — Guaranteed minimum wage)
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                           (2001/C 173/32)
                                                                            in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
                                                                            of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
                                                                                Tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/33)
In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                                            (Language of the case: French)
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: Éric                             in the European Court Reports)
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the                   In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)                 (Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic


title: Case C-270/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v L. Panagiotidis and Others (Collective redundancies — Council Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Termination of the establishment's activities of the employer's own volition — Concept of establishment )

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v L. Panagiotidis and Others
   (Case C-270/05) (1)

   (Collective redundancies - Council Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Termination of the establishment's activities of the employer's own volition - Concept of ‘establishment’)
   (2007/C 82/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Arios Pagos
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE

      Defendant: L. Panagiotidis and Others

      Intervener: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 (OJ 1975 L 48, p. 29), Article 2(4) of Council Directive 92/56/EEC of 24 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 3) and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16), on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies — Employer's obligation to inform and consult with the workers' representatives — Scope of the derogating conditions governing dismissals where activities are terminated following a judicial decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, in particular Article 1(1)(a), is to be interpreted as meaning that a production unit such as that at issue in the main proceedings comes within the concept of ‘establishment ’for the purposes of the application of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-246/01 (1)

   (2004/C 94/76)
   By order of 20 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-246/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 245 of 1.09.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy (Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Definition of "contracting authoritye" — Body governed by public law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to promote the development of industrial or commercial activities on the territory of that authority)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 171/5
      from being regarded by the national court as capable of being          of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
      relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating     Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
      and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into        Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was              22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the
      French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being          1.    A limited company established, owned and managed by a
      relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules            regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,
      on publicity.                                                                within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)
                                                                                of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                                the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
( 1) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.                                                        contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting
                                                                                the development of industrial or commercial activities on the
                                                                                territory of that regional or local authority. To determine
                                                                                whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,
                                                                                the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed
                                                                                when that company was set up and the conditions in which it
                                                                                carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact
                                                                                that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that
                                                                                it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any
                                                                                public financing of the activity in question.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             2.    The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a
                                                                                single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is
                                                                                shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not
                                                                                having an industrial or commercial character.
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taito-
                              talo Oy (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governed by public                                            of 22 May 2003
law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to
promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-                  in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties on the territory of that authority)                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                           (2003/C 171/05)                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective
                                                                             equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                           by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in                In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtu-                (Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
uritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti                    W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Var-                    supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
kauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of                D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  although it complies with the requirements of Council Direc-
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President                     tive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation