title: Case C-224/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/15
however, authorise Finland to derogate from the provisions of                  training’issued by the Consulate General and who sub-
the said directives beyond what is specified in those points of                sequently held a temporary residence authorisation
the annex in question.                                                         restricted to vocational training activity with a specific
                                                                               employer fulfil the requirements of the second or third
Finland amended its legislation on excise duties by enacting                   indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-
the new Valmisteverotuslaki (Law on excise duties,                             Turkey Association Council on the development of the
1469/29.12.1994), which was intended to transpose Council                      Association if, from 1 October 1992 to 5 May 1997, he
Directive 94/74/EEC (3) into national legislation. Fuel duty was               was in the training relationship in question and received
amended by the Laki nestemäisten polttoaineiden valmiste-                      for that a monthly training remuneration?
verosta (Law on excise duty on liquid fuels, 1472/29.12.1994).
That law partly transposed Directives 92/81/EEC and                       2.   Does a Turkish national who is the child by birth of
92/82/EEC into national legislation. Neither in this connection                former Turkish workers in the host country fulfil the
nor subsequently was the use in motor vehicles of light fuel                   requirements of the second paragraph of Article 7 of
oil, intended for heating expressly prohibited. With respect to                Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council
that light fuel oil, no provisions or rules on fiscal control are              on the development of the Association if he was adopted
laid down either in legislation or administrative regulations.                 as an adult by German nationals with the effects of
Nor are there any provisions or rules on fiscal control with                   adoption of a minor and his kinship to his natural parents
respect to the distribution of light fuel oil intended for heating.            has thereby ceased to exist? It is sufficient in that respect
There is no control at all with respect to the distribution of                 that he was the child of Turkish workers at the time of
light fuel oil intended for heating, and the minor checks done                 his parents’ legal employment and at the start of his
alongside police road traffic control may not be regarded as                   vocational training?
comprehensive fiscal control with respect to use.
                                                                          3.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
                                                                               second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
Light fuel oil is obtainable in Finland, especially in thinly                  EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
populated areas, from service stations, which can sell it without              the Association if, eight years after leaving the host
fiscal control to anyone. As in Finland no controls are carried                country together with his parents who at that time were
out at all in such cases and there are no sanctions on the                     leaving definitively, he re-entered the country (without
activity of retailers, Finland cannot disclaim its obligation to               his parents) for the purpose of vocational training?
transpose Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC in its national
legislation in all respects. It must also be stressed that Finland        4.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
has not been granted any derogation from the fiscal control                    second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
required in the said directives.                                               EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
                                                                               the Association if he did not take the last part of the final
(1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             examination in the host country, but in his country of
(2) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 19.                                             origin before the host country’s examining board which
(3) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 46.                                             had travelled there?
                                                                          5.   Is it compatible with Article 6 or the second paragraph
                                                                               of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                               Association Council that, in a case where deportation has
                                                                               taken place, residence authorisation must be refused, by
                                                                               virtue of the prohibitive effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the
                                                                               Ausländergesetz (Law on Aliens, AuslG), until a time-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                       limit has, upon application, been placed on the effects of
gericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000                      the deportation?
in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-
                          Württemberg
                         (Case C-188/00)
                         (2000/C 247/18)
                                                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Karlsruhe of 22 March 2000, which                                          (Case C-224/00)
was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:                                                     (2000/C 247/19)
1.    Does a Turkish national who, with the approval of the               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      competent authority for aliens, entered the country                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational               2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/16              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, of its Legal Service, and                  Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                   European Communities against the Republic of Finland
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.                                                           (Case C-229/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
      (Article 207 of the highway code) which provides for                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      different and disproportionate treatment for offenders               represented by Ilkka Koskinen and Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal
      according to the place of registration of their vehicles, the        Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations.               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           Centre, Kirchberg.
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has not adopted the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                                to comply with Council Directive 89/105/EEC of
                                                                                21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of
                                                                                measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
Article 207 of the highway code provides that, where a                           human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
provision of the highway code is infringed while driving a                       health insurance systems(1), and has thus failed in
vehicle registered abroad, the offender must pay — directly to                   particular to comply with Article 6 of that directive by
the booking officer and without being able to appeal to the                      not applying the prescribed procedure to decisions on
Prefect of the area where the offence takes place — a fine equal                 the determination of individual reimbursement categori-
to the minimum fixed for the particular type of offence or pay                   es, and failed to comply with its obligations by not
a security or show a credit document to cover a sum equal to                     publishing in negative decisions a statement of reasons
one half of the maximum of the pecuniary penalty set for the                     based on objective and verifiable criteria sufficient for the
offence. The provision provides for confiscation of the driving                  applicant;
licence if the offender fails to pay the security or to show the
guarantee. Appeal to the Prefect is not expressly provided for.
                                                                           2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
Article 202 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that, for
offences involving a vehicle registered in Italy, the offender is          Pleas in law and main arguments
allowed to pay, no later than 60 days after notification, an
amount equal to the minimum fine set for the offence. The
offender may pay the fine at the police station to which the               The Finnish authorities consider that Finland is entitled to differ
booking officer belongs or by way of bank transfer to a post               in its own national legislation from Community legislation in
office or bank account. Finally, he is entitled to appeal to the           so far as Community legislation requires transparency from
Prefect within 60 days of the notification in respect of the               the authorities of a Member State. The ground stated is that
offence.                                                                   the decisions of the Valtioneuvosto (Government) of 1964 in
                                                                           the Finnish health insurance system come under the principle
                                                                           of proportionality in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty.
                                                                           This claim has no basis. That was also stated in the Com-
The Commission takes the view that the abovementioned                      mission’s reasoned opinion.
legislation constitutes discrimination on grounds of the place
of registration of the vehicle and thus has an effect on the
outcome as a result of discrimination on grounds of national-
ity. The Italian Republic therefore has failed to fulfil its               Since Article 1 of Directive 89/105/EEC requires Member
                                                                           States to ensure that all national measures, whether laid down
obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC).                                                 by law, regulation or administrative action, to control the
                                                                           prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the
                                                                           range of medicinal products covered by their national health
                                                                           insurance systems comply with the requirements of that
                                                                           directive, that means that it is not permitted to adopt in
                                                                           national legislation measures which differ from the provisions
                                                                           of the directive. That concerns in particular the requirement of


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-247/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt, Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL v. Belgian State (Article 177 of the EC Treaty - Jurisdiction of the Court - National legislation reproducing Community provisions - Relief from customs duties - Fuel on board motorised road vehicles - Definition of 'standard tanks')

text:
23.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 20/13
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C.                of new Member States to the European Union (OJ L 1,
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)               1.1.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed
and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General;              of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of
H. von Holstein, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.
3 December 1998 in which it has ruled:                               Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 1998 in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
1. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              Article 99 of the Act concerning the conditions of
     brown bee) constitutes a measure having an effect               accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
     equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
     meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                         to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                     as amended by Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom,
                                                                     ECSC of 1 January 1995 adjusting the instruments
2. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping            concerning the accession of new Member States to the
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other           European Union, is to be interpreted as not having
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              permitted the Republic of Finland to levy, for a period of
     brown bee) must be regarded as justified, under                 three years from its accession to the Community on
     Article 36 of the Treaty, on the ground of the                  1 January 1995, customs duties on imports of products
     protection of the health and life of animals.                   which had already been released into free circulation in
                                                                     another Member State.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (First Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 3 December 1998                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-233/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 of 3 December 1998
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus (Finland)): Proceedings                   in Case C-247/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                  brought by KappAhl Oy (1)                          the Cour de Cassation): Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc
(Free movement of goods Ð Products in free circulation               Schoonbroodt, Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL v.
Ð Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria, the                                           Belgian State (1)
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden Ð                      (Article 177 of the EC Treaty Ð Jurisdiction of the Court
                  Derogations Ð Article 99)                          Ð National legislation reproducing Community provisions
                        (1999/C 20/20)                               Ð Relief from customs duties Ð Fuel on board motorised
                                                                            road vehicles Ð Definition of standard tanks')
                                                                                (1999/C 20/21)
                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-233/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                    published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
brought before that court by KappAhl Oy Ð on the                     In Case C-247/97, reference to the Court under Article 177
interpretation of Article 99 of the Act concerning the               of the EC Treaty by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                court between Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt,
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union              Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL and Belgian State
is founded (OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 21), as amended by               Ð on the interpretation of Article 112 of Council
Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of 1 January                 Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
1995 adjusting the instruments concerning the accession              a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1), as amended by Council                       Düsseldorf, Germany, in the proceedings pending before
Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, which also                that court between: Uwe Clees and Hauptzollamt
amends Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                 (Principal Customs Office) Wuppertal Ð application for a
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   preliminary ruling on the interpretation of heading 9705
Tariff (OJ L 123, 17.5.1988, p. 2) Ð the Court (First                of the combined nomenclature contained in Annex I to
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on
of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges;                the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy              Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1) Ð
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:                              Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                     K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Article 112(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83
of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of
reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1315/88 of 3 May 1988, which also
amends Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                 Heading 9705 of the combined nomenclature contained in
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs                   Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
Tariff, must be interpreted as follows:                              23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
                                                                     on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as
                                                                     meaning that motor vehicles which are:
the definition of standard tanks' used therein does not
apply to tanks fixed to containers equipped with a
refrigeration system and intended for long-distance road
haulage where those tanks have been permanently fixed                Ð in their original state, without substantial changes to
by one of the manufacturer's dealers or by a coachbuilder                the chassis, steering or braking system, engine, etc.;
in order to attain certain financial objectives.
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                                                                     Ð at least 30 years old; and
                                                                     Ð of a model or type which is no longer in production
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     are presumed to be of historical or ethnographic interest.
                     of 3 December 1998
in Case C-259/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Uwe Clees v. Hauptzollamt
                         Wuppertal (1)                               However, motor vehicles which satisfy those conditions
                                                                     are not of historical or ethnographic interest where the
(Common Customs Tariff Ð Collections and collectors'
                                                                     competent authority establishes that they are not liable to
  pieces of historical or ethnographic interest Ð Old cars)
                                                                     evidence a significant step in the evolution of human
                        (1999/C 20/22)                               achievements or illustrate a period of that evolution.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     In addition, the criteria laid down by the case-law of the
                                                                     Court concerning the characteristics required in order for
                                                                     a vehicle to be included in a collection must be met.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
In Case C-259/97, reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court)


title: Case T-312/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Staff case — Promotion — Award of priority points)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission
   (Case T-312/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Staff case - Promotion - Award of priority points)
   (2008/C 313/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes and, subsequently, by M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and V. Joris, Agents, and, subsequently, by V. Joris and G. Berscheid, Agents, and D. Wealbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   An action for annulment of:

               —

               the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service of the Commission to award the applicant only one Directorate-General priority point for the 2003 promotion procedure, communicated on 2 July 2003, confirmed by a decision of the appointing authority notified on 16 December 2003;

               —

               the decision of the appointing authority not to award the applicant any special priority points for additional activity in the interests of the institution for the 2003 promotion procedure, notified through the Sysper 2 system on 16 December 2003;

               —

               the following decisions: the decision of the appointing authority to award the applicant a total of 20 points for the 2003 promotion procedure; the merit list of officials in grade A 5 for the 2003 promotion procedure published in Administrative Notices No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A 4 for the 2003 promotion procedure and published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003 and, in any event, the decision not to include the applicant's name on those lists.

               —

               in so far as it is necessary, the decision of the appointing authority of 15 June 2004 rejecting the complaint brought on 12 February 2004 by the applicant;

               —

               the decision of 11 April 2007, notified on 16 April 2003, by which the appointing authority decided to award the applicant one additional priority point for the 2003 promotion procedure, yielding a total of 2 priority points, and a total number of 21 points;

         and for a declaration of the nullity of all decisions taken in the course of the 2003 promotion procedure contested in the present action and not replaced in 2007 and, in particular, the merit list of officials in grade A 5 for the 2003 promotion procedure, published in Administrative Notices No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003 and the list of officials promoted to grade A 4 for the 2003 promotion procedure, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003, and compensation of EUR 5 000.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the Commission fixing the total promotion points for the applicant at 21 points and refusing to include his name on the list of officials promoted to grade A 4 for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-108/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that court of 2 September 1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Cantor Fitzgerald International

text:
C 188/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            3.7.1999
5. The solution opted for by the contested decision, based on             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
     entirely irrelevant criteria, breaches the principles of social      istratif de Pau (First Chamber) by judgment of that
     cohesion and of solidarity among the Member States. It               court of 23 March 1999 in the case of Association
     further breaches the principle of non-discrimination, given          basco-béarnaise des opticiens indépendants against Préfet
     that the reduction of the aid already granted to Italy was           des Pyrénées-Atlantiques in the presence of Mutualité
     greater than that applied to any other Member State.                 ‘Adour Mutualité’ and Mutualité Française Union des
                                                                                Pyrénées-Atlantiques
6. The applicant Government further submits that the Com-
     mission’s conduct is contradictory and is ultra vires.                                          (Case C-109/99)
     Moreover, the contested decision allegedly infringes
     Article 2 of Regulation No 1866/90, (4) as amended by
     Article 1 of Regulation No 2745/94. (5)                                                         (1999/C 188/18)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) of 19 December 1988 (OJ 1988 L 374,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-
    p. 1).                                                                tratif de Pau (Administrative Court, Pau) of 23 March 1999,
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) of 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20).      received at the Court Registry on 29 March 1999, for a
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) of 24 June 1993 (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) of 2 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 170, p. 36).
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Association basco-béarnaise
(5) Council Regulation (EEC) of 10 November 1994 (OJ 1994 L 290,          des opticiens indépendants against Préfet des Pyrénées-
    p. 4).                                                                Atlantiques in the presence of Mutualité ‘Adour Mutualité’
                                                                          and Mutualité Française Union des Pyrénées-Atlantiques. The
                                                                          Tribunal Administratif de Pau (First Chamber) requests a ruling
                                                                          from the Court of Justice of the following two questions:
                                                                          (1) Must Article 8(1)(b) of Council Directive 73/239/EEC (1)
                                                                               be interpreted as precluding the provisions of
                                                                               Articles L 123-1 and L 123-2 of the French Mutuality
                                                                               Code, which allow mutual benefit societies whose sole
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                           business is that of insurance to create between them
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,                          mutual benefit bodies which have legal personality and
Divisional Court, by order of that court of 2 September                        legal autonomy and engage in commercial business in the
1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and                              optical sector?
        Excise against Cantor Fitzgerald International
                                                                          (2) If the provisions of the directive are incompatible with
                                                                               French law, is the prohibition of commercial business
                          (Case C-108/99)                                      imposed on the mutual benefit body set up by mutual
                                                                               benefit societies whose sole business is that of insurance
                         (1999/C 188/17)                                       general and absolute, or is it open to the competent
                                                                               authorities of the Member State to define the conditions
                                                                               under which and the spheres in which a commercial
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         business may be pursued?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional
Court of 2 September 1998, which was received at the Court                (1) Of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
Registry on 30 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                    administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of
case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Cantor                    the business of direct insurance other than life insurance (OJ 1973
Fitzgerald International, on the following question:                          L 228 p. 3).
Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92 (Lubbock
Fine & Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners); (1) does
Article 13B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (2) exempt from VAT
a supply made by a person (‘the person’) who does not have
any interest in immovable property, where the person agrees
to accept an assignment of a lease of that immovable property
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
from a lessee, and the lessee pays that person a sum of money
                                                                          Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 January 1999 in
in return for that person taking the assignment of the lease in
                                                                          the case of Toshiba Europe GmbH against Katun Germany
that immovable property?
                                                                                GmbH
(1) ECR 1993 p. I-6665.                                                                              (Case C-112/99)
(2) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                                       (1999/C 188/19)
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Landgericht Düsseldorf
                                                                          (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf), Fourth Civil Chamber, of


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-281/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht, Munich): Andrea Krüger v Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg (Equal treatment for men and women - End-of-year bonus - Conditions for granting)

text:
C 352/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.12.1999
1. The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
    obligations under the third indent of the first subparagraph, and      G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
    the second subparagraph, of Article 3(2) and under Article 5 of        acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.L. Murray and
    Directive 90/313,                                                      H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. Rühl,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
    — By failing to provide for access to be given to information          on 9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
         during administrative proceedings where the public auth-
         orities have received information in the course of those          Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
         proceedings,                                                      have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be
                                                                           interpreted as meaning that exclusion by a collective agreement from
    — by failing to provide in the Umweltinformationsgesetz for            entitlement to a special annual bonus provided for by that collective
         information to be supplied in part where it is possible to        agreement of persons in employment which involves a normal
         separate out information concerning the interests referred to     working week of less than 15 hours and normal pay not exceeding a
         in Article 3(2) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June         fraction of the monthly baseline and is, on that basis, exempt from
         1990 on the freedom of access to information on the               compulsory social insurance constitutes indirect discrimination based
         environment, and                                                  on sex, where that exclusion applies independently of the sex of the
                                                                           worker but actually affects a considerably higher percentage of women
    — by failing to provide that a charge is to be made only where         than men.
         information is in fact supplied.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed.                          (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
3. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           in Case C-374/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anton Feyrer v
                                                                                Landkreis Rottal-Inn (1)
                       of 9 September 1999
                                                                           (Directive 85/73/EEC — Fees in respect of health inspections
in Case C-281/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                            and controls of fresh meat — Direct effect)
the Arbeitsgericht, Munich): Andrea Krüger v Kreiskran-
                       kenhaus Ebersberg (1)                                                         (1999/C 352/08)
(Equal treatment for men and women — End-of-year bonus
                    — Conditions for granting)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (1999/C 352/07)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)                         In Case C-374/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bayerischer
                                                                           Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     the proceedings pending before that court between Anton
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Feyrer and Landkreis Rottal-Inn (Intervener: Landesanwalt-
                                                                           schaft Bayern als Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses) —
In Case C-281/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              on the interpretation of Article 2(3) of Council Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health
(Labour Court), Munich, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in               inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ
the proceedings pending before that court between Andrea                   1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC
Krüger and Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg — on the interpret-                  of 22 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15), and of points 1
ation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of              and 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex thereto — the Court
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143                 (Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
EC) and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                 Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges;
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                 P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                    9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-364/10: Action brought on 2 September 2010 — Duravit and Others v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/59

      Action brought on 2 September 2010 — Duravit and Others v Commission
      (Case T-364/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/108)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Duravit AG (Hornberg, Germany); Duravit SA (Bischwiller, France); and Duravit BeLux BVBA (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: R. Bechtold, U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, declare Articles 1(1), 2 and 3 of the decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010, C(2010) 4185 final, in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures, to be invalid in so far as they concern the applicants;

                  —

                  In the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2(9) of the decision;

                  —

                  Pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants have brought this action against Commission decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures. By the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicants and other undertakings for infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA. According to the Commission, the applicants participated in a continuous agreement or concerted practice in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria.
      In support of their action, the applicants submit nine pleas in law.
      In their first plea, the applicants allege that the Commission has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the applicants participated in price-fixing or other anti-competitive conduct. The Commission misunderstood the burden and standard of proof required to establish an infringement of Article 101 TFEU in Commission proceedings, and imposed excessive requirements on the applicants in the Commission proceeding in relation to the provision of positive proof and the burden of proof.
      In their second plea, the applicants claim that the Commission held the applicants responsible for the whole of the infringement in relation to the relevant goods on account of their participation in alleged ‘cartel meetings’ of a German umbrella Association for the relevant goods, without establishing that the applicants had taken part in discussions about the relevant goods. In that regard, the applicants argue that the Commission incorrectly, immediately, and without taking account of the actual business and legal background, categorised the discussions in the German umbrella association as deliberate restrictions on competition.
      The applicants further claim, in their third plea, that the Commission has failed to prove anti-competitive conduct on the German sanitary ceramics market. The applicants complain, in that regard, that the Commission unlawfully categorised discussions at a German ceramics association as price-fixing and deliberate restrictions on competition, and that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right to a fair and unprejudiced proceeding by making improper incriminating findings on the basis of clearly irrelevant evidence.
      In their fourth plea, the applicants claim that they did not participate in price-fixing in France or Belgium. In the view of the applicants, the Commission found, wrongly, that discussions at Belgian and French ceramic associations involved price-fixing and also wrongly assessed the duration of the alleged infringement and thereby misapplied Article 101 TFEU.
      In the context of the fifth plea, the applicants claim that the Commission found, incorrectly, that the actions on the market for wardrobe doors, shower partitions and ceramics were a single and continuous infringement, and thereby misapplied Article 101 TFEU. In that respect, the applicants allege that the criteria developed in the case-law for establishing a single and continuous infringement were not met.
      For their sixth plea, the applicants claim that the Commission clearly infringed their rights of the defence and their right to an oral hearing under Articles 12 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (1) on account of the excessive length of the proceeding and because of the replacement of all the internal Commission staff taking part in the decisionmaking process after the oral hearing.
      In the context of their seventh plea, the applicants claim that the Commission wrongly used its Guidelines on the setting of the fines (2) to calculate the amount of the fine, in that, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, those guidelines are invalid on the basis that they infringe Article 290(1) TFEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      In their eighth plea, the applicants claim that the Commission’s calculation of the amount of the fine was erroneous, since the Commission did not take account of the low level of the applicants’ alleged involvement, but rather assessed as one the gravity of the infringement for all the undertakings concerned. In the applicants’ opinion, that breaches the principle of individual responsibility.
      Lastly, in the context of the ninth plea, the applicants complain that the level of the fine imposed breaches the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in that the applicants did not participate in the most serious distortions of competition.

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

         (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-254/03: Action brought on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López Cejudo against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 213/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             6.9.2003
Action brought on 7 July 2003 by Fédération Nationale                      processors agreed on a temporary ban on imports and the
de l’Industrie et des Commerces en Gros des Viandes                        application of a fair schedule of purchase prices, in exchange
(FNICGV) against Commission of the European Communi-                       for lifting the blockades on abattoirs.
                                ties
                                                                           In support of its action, the applicant claims that there was an
                         (Case T-252/03)
                                                                           absence of consent and an absence of freedom at the stage of
                                                                           concluding the agreement, which in its submission constitutes
                         (2003/C 213/78)                                   a ground for exempting it from liability for implementing the
                                                                           agreement. It claims to have been under duress characterised
                                                                           by threats and violence on the part of farmers against the
                    (Language of the case: French)                         applicant’s members, failure on the part of the French public
                                                                           authorities to take action to maintain order and strong pressure
                                                                           on the part of the Minister for Agriculture. The applicant
                                                                           further claims that it was unable to complain of the pressure
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  brought to bear on its members, since the Minister for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Agriculture had initiated, encouraged and permitted the con-
European Communities on 7 July 2003 by the Fédération                      clusion of the agreement. Last, the applicant states that it had
Nationale de l’Industrie et des Commerces en Gros des Viandes              no economic interest in concluding the agreement.
(FNICGV), whose registered office is in Paris, represented
by Pierre Abegg, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                Finally, the applicant claims that the fact that the Commission
                                                                           acknowledged in the decision at issue that the applicant acted
                                                                           under duress whilst ordering it to pay a fine means that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                statement of reasons in the decision is contradictory.
primarily:
                                                                           The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 15(2) of
                                                                           Regulation No 17 (1) as regards reduction of the fine. The
—     annul the fine imposed by the Commission in its decision             applicant relies in that regard on infringement of the principle
      of 2 April 2003;                                                     of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons. The
                                                                           applicant points out that the amount of the fine is also liable
                                                                           to impair freedom of trade union activity, since the applicant’s
in the alternative:                                                        budget no longer allows it to represent the interests of its
                                                                           members.
—     significantly reduce the amount of the fine imposed by
      the Commission in its decision of 2 April 2003;
                                                                           (1 ) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing
                                                                                Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (English Special Edition 1959-
in any event:                                                                   1962, p. 87).
—     order the European Commission to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López
The applicant seeks annulment or reduction of the fine                     Cejudo against Commission of the European Communi-
imposed on it by the Commission decision of 2 April 2003 in
                                                                                ties
Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French bovine meat, relating to
an infringement of Article 81(1) EC in the form of an
agreement intended to suspend imports of bovine meat into                                           (Case T-254/03)
France and to set a minimum price for certain categories of
beasts.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/79)
The applicant states that, during the second mad cow crisis,
certain cattle breeders encountered experienced an unpre-                                      (Language of the case: French)
cedented crisis in October 2001. In France, groups of breeders
blockaded abattoirs, mounted demonstrations and stopped
trucks to check the origin of the meat and destroy non-French
meat. Subsequently, at the prompting of the French Minister                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for Agriculture, the federations representing breeders and                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/41
European Communities on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López                In support of his action the applicant alleges infringements of
Cejudo, residing in Brasilia (Brazil), represented by Georges           Annex X to the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                   of equal treatment and of the principle patere legem quam ipse
                                                                        fecit. As regards the decision concerning his allowance for
                                                                        living conditions, the applicant also alleges unjust enrichment
                                                                        on the part of the Communities and breach of the duty to state
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reasons and breaches of the principles of lawfulness and sound
                                                                        administration.
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 June
      2002 concerning the allocation of housing to the appli-           (1 ) Judgment of 12 November 2002 in Case T-271/01 José Manuel
      cant and annul the decision of the appointing authority                López Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities
      contained in the applicant’s salary slip for July 2002                 [2002] ECR SC II-1109, communicated in OJ No C 19 of
      relating to the application of the allowance for living                25 January 2003, p. 33.
      conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the
      Staff Regulations;
—     annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision of
      28 March 2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged
      on 5 September 2002;
—     order the defendant to pay default interest running from
      July 2000 on the difference between the amount received
      by the applicant as allowance for living conditions and           Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der
      the amount which he ought to have received, having                Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef
      regard to his four dependent children, until payment in           Kloh against the Commission of the European Communi-
      full, the rate of default interest applied having to be                                            ties
      calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European
      Central Bank for principal refinancing operations appli-
      cable during the period in question, increased by two
                                                                                (Case T-256/03)
      points;
—     order the defendant to pay one euro as a token in                                          (2003/C 213/80)
      reparation of non-material damage;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes
                                                                        der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V., Bochum
                                                                        (Germany) and Josef Kloh, Eichenried (Germany), represented
                                                                        by R. Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers.
The applicant, a Commission official posted to the Brasilia
delegation, has four children now living with their mother, the
applicant’s ex-wife. None the less, the applicant contributes to
the children’s actual maintenance, as has already been recog-           The applicants claim that the Court should:
nised by the Court of First Instance in other proceedings
brought by the applicant (1). The present dispute concerns two
decisions of the Commission, one refusing the applicant                 —      annul Articles 1 and 6 of the Commission Decision of
authorisation for housing including five bedrooms in order to                  12 May 2003 (2003/328/EC) in so far as, as derogations
accommodate his four children, on the ground that they live                    regarding category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and
with their mother in Europe ,and the other, communicated to                    the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to
the applicant by means of his salary slip for July 2002 taking                 pigs, they apply until 31 October 2006 at the latest;
into account, for the purpose of defining the allowance for
living conditions (Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regu-
lations), of two children only instead of four.                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 1 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-343/97)

text:
C 357/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
     costs .                                                         1 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v. Kliisen Handel
                                                                    BY on the following questions :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1 . Does it suffice, for there to be a likelihood of
                                                                         confusion because of similarity between the sign and
By prohibiting the importation into the Netherlands of                   the trade mark and identity of the goods or services
( young) molluscs from other Member States for the                       covered by the sign and the mark, that the mark and
purposes of their being placed in surface waters ( for                   the sign each consist of a single syllable only, are
example, in order to let them grow there ), the contested                identical in sound both at the beginning and as regards
Regulation has the effect of restricting intra-Community                 the only combination of vowels and the — single —
trade and thus falls within the prohibition contained in                 final consonant of the mark recurs in the sign in
Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                similar form ('t' instead of 'd') in a consonant cluster
                                                                         of three consonants including ' s'; specifically, do the
                                                                         designations ' Lloyd' and 'Loints' for shoes conflict ?
Contrary to - the view taken by the Netherlands
Government, the contested regulation is not justified               2 . What is the significance in this connection of the
pursuant to Article 36 of the Treaty. According to the                   wording of the Directive ( l ) which provides that the
                                                                         likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of
Netherlands Government, the objective of the contested
Regulation is to prevent the introduction into Netherlands               association between the sign and the trade mark ?
waters of foreign algae ( dinoflagellata ) and of cysts             3 . Must a special distinctive character, and hence an
deriving therefrom ( survival phases ) which may lead to the             extended material scope of protection of a
formation of biotoxins such as paralytic shellfish poison                distinguishing sign, already be taken to exist where
('PSP') in bivalve molluscs. The consumption of bivalve                  there is a degree of recognition of 10% in the relevant
molluscs containing PSP can, according to the Netherlands                trade circles ?
Government, be harmful to human health (giving rise,
inter alia, to symptoms of paralysis and sometimes even                  Would that be the case with a degree of recognition of
death ). According to the Netherlands Government, bivalve                36% ?
molluscs can contain PSP, because they feed on algae
which produce that substance. However, it has not been                   Would such an extension of the scope of protection
proven that the transportation of bivalve molluscs can                   lead to a different answer to question 1 , if that
result in the introduction of PSP-producing dinoflagellata.              question were to be answered by the Court of Justice
There are numerous coastal zones in the Community                        in the negative ?
where PSP-producing dinoflagellata have never been
found, or at any rate not for many years; the importation           4.   Is a trade mark to be taken to have an enhanced
of bivalve molluscs from those regions and their                         distinctive character       simply     because it has      no
introduction into Netherlands waters does not involve any                descriptive elements ?
risk .  The   Commission      therefore considers   that  the
objective pursued by the Netherlands may also be                    (') First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
achieved by imposing a requirement that imported                        approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
                                                                        marks ( OJ L 40, 11 . 2 . 1989, p. 1 ).
consignments of bivalve molluscs may be introduced into
Netherlands waters only if they are accompanied by a
certificate showing that the consignment in question
comes from a coastal zone where PSP-producing
dinoflagellata have never been found, or at any rate not in
the recent past.                                                    Action brought on 1 October 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-343/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/36 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht             An action agaist the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Miinchen I by order of that court of 11 September 1997              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
in the case of Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v.                on 1 October 1997 by the Commission of the European
                     Kliisen Handel BY                              Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                    Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                      ( Case C-342/97
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                        ( 97/C 357/35 )                             of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht                 — declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
Miinchen I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 11 September                    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 357/21
      comply with Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April              DM        Drogeriemarkt            GmbH,    and    Flic    Flac
       1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of           Kinderbekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft           mbH     against
      genetically modified organisms ('), and Commission                Tiroler Landesregierung ( Government of Tirol ) on the
      Directive 94/5 1/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to                following questions :
      technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
      the contained use of genetically modified micro                  Is Article 33 ( 1 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/
       organisms ( 2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to             EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
       fulfil its obligations under those Directives,                   the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                        system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (')
                                                                        to be interpreted with regard to the description
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        'characterized as turnover taxes' as precluding the
                                                                        imposition on traders by a Member State of a tourism levy
                                                                        ( contribution ) which has the following features :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it is payable by traders with a direct or indirect
                                                                             interest in the tourist industry and therefore by a large
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                      number of, but not all, traders,
out in Case C-320/97 ('); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 23 October 1991 ( Directive 90/
220/EEC) and 30 April 1995 (Directive 94/5 1 /EC ).                     — it goes to a local tourist association to finance the
                                                                             development of the tourist industry or to a fund to be
                                                                             used for the whole region ( Land),
(>) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
( 2 ) OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994, p . 29 .
(•') OJ C 331 , 1 . 11 . 1997, p. 13 .                                  — the basis of assessment is the yearly turnover with
                                                                             certain exceptions, in particular turnover related to
                                                                             services to customers whose place of residence (seat) is
                                                                             outside the area covered by the legislation, in so far as
                                                                             the services are not for a business situated within the
                                                                             area covered by the legislation (a Bundesland of a
                                                                             Member State composed of federal States ) and not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs                       services to final consumers, and turnover related to
gerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 12 August                     other services in so far as they are not supplied
1997 in the case of Wiener Städtische Allgemeine                             exclusively or primarily within the area covered by the
Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter KG                            legislation ( the Bundesland of the Member State ),
Gasthof 'Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft                   — the amount of the levy varies according to the benefit
mbH ( formerly Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH ),                         deemed by the legislature to be derived from tourism
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG, Elmar Kurz,                              by the sector to which the taxpayer belongs,
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH 'Hotel
Schwarzbrunn', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und
Beratungsges. mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                 — the amount of the levy is higher in tourist areas than
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                           in others, and
DM Drogeriemarkt GmbH, and Flic Flac Kinder
bekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft mbH against Tiroler                     — no provision is made for deduction of input tax ?
                            Landesregierung
                           ( Case C-344/97 )                            (') OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                             ( 97/C 357/37 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                     Action brought on 2 October 1997 by the Federal
richtshof ( Administrative Court), Vienna, of 12 August                 Republic of Germany against the Council of the European
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 October 1997,                                                   Union
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wiener Städtische
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter                                          (Case C-345/97 )
KG Gasthof ' Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef                                           ( 97/C 357/38 )
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
mbH         ( formerly   Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft    mbH ),
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG , Elmar Kurz,                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH ' Hotel                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Schwarzbrunn ', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und                     Communities on 2 October 1997 by the Federal Republic
Beratungsges . mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Claus-Dieter
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                      Quassowski, Federal Economics Ministry, D-53107 Bonn.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation): August De Vriendt v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen, Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. René van Looveren and Others (Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment - Old-age and retirement pensions - Method of calculation - Pensionable age)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/7
(Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the pro-            D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
ceedings pending before that court between Caisse Natio-             P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
nale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs SalarieÂs               General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
(CNAVTS) and EÂvelyne Thibault Ð on the interpretation               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 April 1998,
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                in which it has ruled:
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment,                       On a proper construction, Council Decision 89/688/EEC
vocational training and promotion, and working                       of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court                 French overseas departments precludes exemptions of a
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President                general or systematic order, which would thus amount to
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray            the reintroduction of a charge having an effect equivalent
(Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                   to that of a customs duty. That decision does, however,
Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                      authorise exemptions which are necessary, proportionate
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              and precisely determined and which respect the strict
judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                    conditions laid down in Article 2(3) thereof, interpreted in
                                                                     the light of the limits laid down in Article 226 of the EC
Articles 2(3) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of            Treaty.
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to               (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions preclude national rules which deprive
a woman of the right to an assessment of her performance
and, consequently, to the possibility of qualifying for
promotion because she was absent from the undertaking
on account of maternity leave.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie/
                                                                     Cour de Cassation): August De Vriendt v. Rijksdienst
                                                                     voor Pensioenen, Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. ReneÂ van
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     Looveren and Others (1)
                       of 30 April 1998                              (Directive 79/7/EEC Ð Equal treatment Ð Old-age and
                                                                     retirement pensions Ð Method of calculation Ð
in Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 (references for a                                       Pensionable age)
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris):
Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger Albert                                          (98/C 209/14)
     SA (C-38/96) v. Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes (1)
(Dock dues (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to                       (Language of the case: Dutch and French)
the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                     Ð Internal taxation)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                        (98/C 209/13)
                                                                     In Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: references to the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian
                                                                     Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       between August De Vriendt and Rijksdienst voor Pensioe-
         published in the European Court Reports)                    nen (C-377/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and ReneÂ van
                                                                     Looveren (C-378/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
                                                                     Julien Grare (C-379/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
In Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96: references to the               Karel Boeykens (C-380/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribu-             and Frans Serneels (C-381/96), Office National des Pen-
nal d'Instance (District Court), Paris, for a preliminary            sions (ONP) and Fredy Parotte (C-382/96), Office Natio-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  nal des Pensions (ONP) and Camille Delbrouck (C-383/
between Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger                 96) and Office National des Pensions (ONP) and Henri
Albert SA (C-38/96) and Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes             Props (C-384/96) Ð on the interpretation of Article 7 of
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC           Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                     progressive implementation of the principle of equal
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                    treatment for men and women in matters of social security
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              (OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24) Ð the Court (Sixth
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 Chamber), composed of H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,             airport to a hotel with a stop, on occasions, at a tourist
J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate             attraction, where the precise route to be taken is not
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         predetermined, does not constitute a regular service within
given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:          the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3820/85 of
                                                                   20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social
                                                                   legislation relating to road transport.
Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning
that, if national legislation has maintained a different
pensionable age for male and female workers, the Member
State concerned is entitled to calculate the amount of
pension differently depending on the worker's sex.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 May 1998
                                                                   in Case C-157/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
                                                                   Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and
                                                                   Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte: National
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 Farmers' Union and Others (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                   (Agriculture Ð Animal health Ð Emergency measures
                       of 30 April 1998                            against bovine spongiform encephalopathy Ð Mad cow
                                                                                disease')
in Case C-47/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Richmond Magistrates' Court): criminal proceedings                                          (98/C 209/16)
against E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport Ð
Compulsory use of a tachograph Ð Exemption for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular
  services where the route covered does not exceed 50 km)
                         (98/C 209/15)
                                                                   In Case C-157/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
               (Language of the case: English)                     Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                   in the proceedings pending before that court between the
                                                                   Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                   and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte:
In Case C-47/97: reference to the Court under Article 177          National Farmers' Union, David Burnett and Sons Ltd,
of the EC Treaty from Richmond Magistrates' Court                  R. S. and E. Wright Ltd, Anglo Beef Processors Ltd,
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal          United Kingdom Genetics, Wyjac Calves Ltd, International
proceedings pending before that court against E. Clarke &          Traders Ferry Ltd, MFP International Ltd, Interstate Truck
Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne Ð on the                        Rental Ltd, Vian Exports Ltd, interveners: Anglo Dutch
interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)            Meat Exports Ltd, Beck Food Group Ltd, First City
No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the                 Trading Ltd, Weddel Swift Ltd, Carrex August Ltd,
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus              Meatal Supplies (Wholesale Meats) Ltd, Meat Marketing
(OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1), and of Article 4(3) of               Services (UK) Ltd, NWL (Ireland) Ltd, Hibernia Foods
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December                 plc, Duggins Ltd (D.T.), Swallow Foods International Ltd,
1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation            British Association of Sheep Exporters Ð on the validity
relating to road transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1)          of Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of
Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet              27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against
(President of the Chamber), P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.            bovine spongiform encephalopathy (OJ L 78 of 20.3.1996,
Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,             p. 47) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                              Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
                                                                   Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,
                                                                   D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
A passenger transport service, supplied on a number of             L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
occasions pursuant to a block reservation made by a tour           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
operator and providing for a single journey from an                given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-242/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic (Appeal — Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Reduction of financial assistance — No need to adjudicate — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/39

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA v European Commission, Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-242/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Articles 149 and 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Reduction of financial assistance - No need to adjudicate - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 225/67
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA (represented by: N. Ruiz, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, L. Flynn and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission by which that court dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Decision C(2007) 3772 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the present appeal proceedings.

               3.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011


title: Case T-716/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/36

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))
   (Case T-716/15)
   (2016/C 059/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) — Application for registration No 10 424 323

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 1502/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 April 2014;

               —

               amend the previous decisions granting full registration of Community mark No 10 424 323;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings, of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal before OHIM.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4, 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-557/08: Action brought on 18 December 2008 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/35

         Action brought on 18 December 2008 — mPAY24 v OHIM — Ultra (MPAY)
   (Case T-557/08)
   (2009/C 55/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: mPAY24 GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Z. Zeiner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra d.o.o. Proizvodnja elektronskih naprav (Zagorje ob Savi, Slovenia)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2008 in case R 221/2007-1 to the extent that the opposition filed by the applicant has been rejected; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 3 587 896

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2 061 656 of the word mark ‘MPAY24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38; Austrian trade mark registration No 200 373 of the word mark ‘MPAY24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.