title: Case C-63/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers' Bureau

text:
C 118/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
                                                                                and on what basis should such interest be calculated?
—     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
      263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999               2.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
      until actual payment;                                                  Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
                                                                             compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
                                                                             including the cost of medical and other reports):
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              a)   must the arrangements concerning the provision of
                                                                                compensation by the body include provision for the
The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks                  payment of the costs incurred by a victim in
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of                         preparing and making his application to that body
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the                             for compensation?
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.                             b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
                                                                                those costs to be calculated in a case where that
The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,                     body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in                           the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted                       victim declined to accept?
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by            3.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
the defendant.                                                               Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
                                                                             compensation is determined by a body that is not a
                                                                             court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
                                                                             determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
                                                                             rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
                                                                             the following principal characteristics:
                                                                             i)   the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                           facts and the law;
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of
                                                                             ii)  when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
                                                                                further representations and adduce further evidence
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
                                                                                to the compensating body upon which the compen-
                        Insurers’ Bureau
                                                                                sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;
                         (Case C-63/01)                                      iii) the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
                                                                                the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
                        (2001/C 118/19)                                           given the opportunity to add any material that he
                                                                                wishes in response;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                        iv)  the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May                      hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February                     compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney                       for that decision;
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on                  v)   if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
the following questions:                                                          from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
                                                                                only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
1.    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                           the arbitration or on a question of law (including
      84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-                          whether there was any evidence to support any
      mation of the laws of the Member States relating to                         particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of                  any particular conclusion was one to which no
      motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):                    arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
                                                                                dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
      a)    must the arrangements concerning the provision of                     law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
            compensation by the body established or authorised                    the Court which will not be given unless the decision
            pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the                    of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
            payment of interest on the sums found to be payable                   and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
            for the damage to property or personal injuries?                      determine the question.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/13
4.   If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is                  Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
     Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under                     requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
     Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive                     workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
     when an existing body has the task of providing compen-                  Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and
     sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
     relevant authority of the Member State that does not               —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     those respects, and:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     a)     that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
            the relevant authority of the Member State to
            provide compensation to victims which is directly           The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
            enforceable by the relevant authority and does not          by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
            give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to     to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
            claim against that body, but the victim may apply to        point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
            the Court for an order that the authority should            subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
            enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to      point 2.8.
            do so; and
                                                                        The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
     b)     that body carries out that obligation by accepting
                                                                        has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
            and paying claims from victims in accordance with
                                                                        89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
            that agreement; and
                                                                        law.
     c)     the Member State considered in good faith that the
            provision of that agreement gave at least as good
                                                                        (1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
            protection to victims as the requirements of the            (2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
            Second Motor Insurance Directive?
5.   If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
     and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
     comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
     that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
     Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
     matter of Community law if it is established that such
     damage was caused?                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
                                                                                appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                                (Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/21)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
                                                                        the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
                          (Case C-65/01)                                Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                         (2001/C 118/20)                                in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
                                                                        questions:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February             1.    Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                                the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
                                                                              and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
                                                                              Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
     Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989                     labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     concerning the minimum safety and health requirements                    foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     for the use of work equipment by workers at work                         human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     (second individual Directive within the meaning of                       ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian                  offence when marketing foodstuffs:


title: Action brought on 5 September 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-291/95)

text:
No C 268/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
30 August 1 995 by the Commission of the European                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                1 , annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission's decision of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            28 June 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                            Article 90 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                            Community and concerning the system of discounts on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                landing fees at Brussels National Airport;
— declare that, by adopting the Ministerial Decree of
    13 March 1992 without first communicating a draft                   2 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
    thereof to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council
    Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure for the provision of information in the field of
    technical standards and regulations (*),                            1 . The contested decision states that the system of
                                                                            discounts on landing fees introduced by Article 2 ( 2 ) of
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                             the Royal Decree of 22 December 1989 is a measure
                                                                            incompatible with Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         in conjunction with Article 86 thereof.
The Commission states that the Ministerial Decree of
3 March 1992 had not been communicated to it in draft                   2 . According to the Commission, the system of discounts
form, which constitutes a manifest failure to fulfil the                    established by the Royal Decree has the effect of
obligations imposed upon Member States by Directive                         applying to the airlines who use Brussels airport
83/ 189/EEC . Furthermore, in the view of the Commission                    dissimilar conditions for equivalent transactions . The
as set out in communication 86/C 245/05 ( OJ No C 245 ,                     Commission claims that the applicant introduced that
1986 , p . 4 ), that infringement of the procedure laid down by             system in order to benefit the Belgian national air
Directive 83/ 189/EEC renders the technical regulations in                  transport company, namely Sabena .
question incapable of producing legal effects and therefore
unenforceable against third parties . The Commission                        The discounts laid down by the Belgian State in the
maintains that the prohibition on the adoption of national                  Royal Decree are administered by the Régie des Voies
measures without prior notification has direct effect and                   Aériennes ( Airways Authority: hereinafter 'the RVA').
confers upon the individual rights which may be relied upon                 Since the RVA has been granted exclusive rights with
before the national courts .                                                respect to the operation of Brussels National Airport,
                                                                            the Commission considers that it holds a dominant
In particular, the Commission claims that the Italian                       position on the market for such services and that the
authorities have infringed the first paragraph of Article 8(1 )             application of the allegedly discriminatory discounts
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC which provides for the                             constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. However,
communication of all draft technical regulations .                          in view of the fact that the RVA can exercise no
                                                                            discretion in that area, its sole role being to implement
(!) OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .                                   the Royal Decree, the Commission claims that the
                                                                            applicant State has acted in disregard of its obligations
                                                                            under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read in
                                                                            conjunction with Article 86 thereof, in so far as it
                                                                            requires the RVA to administer the discriminatory
                                                                            system of discounts .
Action brought on 5 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the Commission of the European                          3 . The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the
                             Communities
                                                                            rights of the defence in its adoption of the contested
                          ( Case C-291 /95 )                                decision . In the course of the procedure, the applicant
                            ( 95/C 268/43 )                                 had no opportunity to give its views, as would have been
                                                                            proper, and no access to the Commission's file.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  The applicant also claims that the decision was adopted
European Communities on 5 September 1995 by the                             in disregard of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty; that
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, acting                     it is vitiated by lack of competence; that the analysis on
as Agent, assisted by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels              which it was based is flawed, both in fact and in law,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       thus infringing Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and lastly,
Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins .                                      that it is vitiated by misuse of powers .


Avis juridique important

|

E2003P0002

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykaness by decision of that court of 27 June 2003 in the case of The State Prosecutor v Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson (Case E-2/03)

Official Journal C 248 , 16/10/2003 P. 0005 - 0005

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykaness by decision of that court of 27 June 2003 in the case of The State Prosecutor v Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson(Case E-2/03)(2003/C 248/05)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 June 2003 of Héraðsdómur Reykaness (District Court of Reykjanes), Hafnarfirði, Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2003, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of The State Prosecutor v Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson, on the following questions:1. Does the term "trade regimes" in Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement and Appendix 3 to the same Protocol, extend to the rules of origin contained in the agreement between European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland, signed on 22 July 1972, so as to prevail over the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement?2. If the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement are, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 7 of Protocol 9, considered to apply to the circumstances of the case, then does defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing fish that has been imported frozen whole to Iceland from countries outside the EEA constitute sufficient working and processing within the meaning of these rules for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin?3. Irrespective of whether the Court takes a position on the interpretation of Protocol 3 to the Agreement of 1972, interpretation is requested of the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement as to whether defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing fish that has been imported into Iceland frozen whole from countries outside the EEA constitutes sufficient working and processing for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin.4. If Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement is considered to apply to the rules of origin contained in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland referred to in question 1, and if these rules of origin are considered to prevail over the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement, and if the EFTA Court is competent to provide an opinion on the interpretation of the rules of origin of this agreement, is then the processing of the type described in question 2 sufficient working and processing in the sense of the Protocol in question in order for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin?5. Subject to the same proviso regarding the competence of the EFTA Court to interpret the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland which was signed on 22 July 1972, to which Member States of the European Union does protocol 6 to that agreement apply?


title: Case C-319/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy — Energy labelling of televisions — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 — Responsibilities of dealers — Television supplied to the dealer without the label before the regulation became applicable — Dealer’s obligation to label that television from the date on which the regulation became applicable and to obtain a label subsequently)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Germany) — Udo Rätzke v S+K Handels GmbH
   (Case C-319/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy - Energy labelling of televisions - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 - Responsibilities of dealers - Television supplied to the dealer without the label before the regulation became applicable - Dealer’s obligation to label that television from the date on which the regulation became applicable and to obtain a label subsequently))
   2014/C 159/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Udo Rätzke

      Defendant: S+K Handels GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Oberlandesgericht — Interpretation of Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions (OJ 2010 L 314, p. 64) — Scope ratione temporis — Obligation of the dealer to ensure that each television at the point of sale bears the label, provided by the suppliers, indicating the energy efficiency class — Televisions supplied to the dealer without labels before the date on which the regulation began to apply

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(a) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of televisions must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation for dealers to ensure that each television, at the point of sale, bears the label provided by the suppliers in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation applies only to televisions which have been placed on the market, that is to say, dispatched for the first time by the manufacturer with a view to their distribution in the sales chain, from 30 November 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-215/07: Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Donnici v Parliament

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/40

         Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Donnici v Parliament
   (Case T-215/07)
   (2007/C 183/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (represented by: M. Sanino, G. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the applicant's credentials;

               —

               declare Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament unlawful under Article 241 EC;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision contested in the present case declares invalid the mandate as member of the European Parliament of Beniamino Donnici, whose election was communicated by the competent national authorities, and confirms the validity of the mandate of Achille Occhetto.
   It should be noted in this regard that, in a decision which has become final, the Consiglio di Stato annulled the declaration of the election of Achille Occhetto to the European Parliament.
   In support of his claims, the applicant submits that the European Parliament:

               —

               was not competent to rule on the validity of the mandate conferred on him as member of the European Parliament;

               —

               infringed Article 12 of the 1976 Act, legislation which does not in any way permit it to challenge decisions taken by the national authorities acting within their powers;

               —

               misapplied Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which, it is also submitted, is unlawful as being at variance with the 1976 Act. The Rules of Procedure, in so far as they are a source of secondary legislation, cannot of themselves confer powers on the European Parliament which are not already provided for in that Act;

               —

               wrongly took the view that it could find that there had been an infringement of Article 6 of the 1976 Act and also breached the principle of res judicata by ‘disapplying’ the judgments, now final and conclusive, which had been delivered in the matter by the national courts;

               —

               failed to give adequate reasons for the contested decision and, in particular, failed to explain the reasons which led it to disregard the contrary opinion delivered by its Legal Service on this matter.


title: Case F-16/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Pangallo v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Pangallo v Commission
   (Case F-16/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/70)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 54.


C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .


title: Case T-381/16: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/28

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)
   (Case T-381/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 195/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Cognitect, Inc. and Klaus Düll.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2)

               Klaus Düll and Cognitect, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2002 in Case T-21/01: Georgios Zavvos v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Downgrading — First paragraph of Article 11 and Article 14 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 219/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14.9.2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 9 July 2002
                                                                                of 9 July 2002
in Case T-21/01: Georgios Zavvos v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)                              in Case T-158/01: Alexandre Tilgenkamp v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Downgrading —
First paragraph of Article 11 and Article 14 of the Staff
                            Regulations)                                    (Officials — Post of Assistant Director General — Vacancy
                                                                            notice — Assessment of the merits of the candidates —
                                                                                Manifest error of assessment)
                          (2002/C 219/45)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/46)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-21/01: Georgios Zavvos, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Linkebeek
(Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                  In Case T-158/01: Alexandre Tilgenkamp, an official of
and D. Waelbroeck) — an application for annulment of the                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
decision of the Commission of 11 January 2000 downgrading                   Overijse (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an
the applicant from Grade A 5 to Grade A 6, maintaining the                  address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
same step, and a claim for damages for the material and non-                European Communities (Agents: J. Currall et D. Waelbroeck)
material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant and                     — application for annulment of the decision of the Com-
assessed at EUR 1 350 000 — the Court of First Instance                     mission of 13 September 2000 appointing F. Barbaso to the
(Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts              post of Assistant Director General ‘Agriculture’ notified in
and J. Azizi, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for           notice COM 094/00 and rejection of the applicant’s candi-
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July 2002, in which it:                 dature for that post, and of the rejection of the complaint
                                                                            lodged by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2000             and J. Azizi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
       downgrading the applicant from Grade A 5 to Grade A 6,               Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July 2002, in which it:
       maintaining the same step;
2.     Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 2 000 by           1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 13 September 2000
       way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                 to appoint F. Barbaso to the post of Assistant Director General
       him;                                                                        ‘Agriculture’ notified in notice COM 094/00 and reject the
                                                                                applicant’s candidature and the express rejection of the latter’s
                                                                                complaint.
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            2.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
4.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
       of the applicant.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 3 November 1995, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd (Case C-100/96)

text:
No C 145/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18 . 5 . 96
        Article 6 ( 2 ) of Decision No 1 /80 as periods of legal        If either the first or the second and third questions are
        employment ?                                                    answered in the negative :
 ( b ) Is a Turkish employee who holds work and residence               4 . Does the possibility provided for in Articles 289 to
        permits entitling him to work as a specialist chef duly              297 of the Netherlands Wetboek van Burgerlijke
        registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member              Rechtsvordering ( Code of Civil Procedure ) for
        State within the meaning of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision              obtaining a judgment ordering payment of contractual
        No 1 /80 even in the case where he was aware from the
                                                                             consideration through application for an immediate
         beginning of his residence in that Member State that he             interim order by way of an abbreviated procedure ('kort
        would be granted a residence permit only for a total                 geding') constitute a provisional measure within the
        period of validity of three years and only in order                  meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
        to carry out a specified activity with a named
        employer ?
 ( c ) If the Court of Justice should take the view that a
        person as described in question ( b ) is duly registered as
        belonging to the labour force of a Member State, does
        the power under Article 6 ( 3 ) of Decision No 1 /80
        entitle Member States to create rights of residence that        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
        do not from the outset form part of the benefits under         Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
        Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 ?                          3 November 1995 , in the case of The Queen against
                                                                        Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                                British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
                                                                                ( Case C-100/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/ 13 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof
by order of that court of 29 February 1996 in the appeal on a
point of law brought by Hans-Hermann Mietz against the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    limited-liability company Intership Yachting Sneek BY               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       Justice , Queen's Bench Division, of 3 November 1995 ,
                           ( Case C-99/96 )                             which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                             ( 96/C 145/12 )                            1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen
                                                                       against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                     parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on the
the European Communities by an order of the                             following questions :
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Ninth Civil
Chamber — of 29 February 1 996 , which was received at the              1 . Does Council Directive 91 /414/EEC ( ! ) of 15 July 1991
Court Registry on 26 March 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling                 concerning the placing of plant protection products on
in the appeal on a point of law brought by Hans-Hermann                     the market as amended allow a Member State to permit
Mietz against the limited-liability company Intership                       the placing on the market of a plant protection product
Yachting Sneek BV on the following questions :                              imported from another EEA State or from a third
                                                                            country because the Member State considers that
1 . Is there a sale of goods on instalment credit terms within            . product to be identical to a master plant protection
       the meaning of point ( 1 ) of the first paragraph of                 product which has already been authorized by that
       Article 13 of the Brussels Convention in the case where,             Member State pursuant to Articles 4 ( 1 ) or 8 ( 2 ) of the
       in a document described by the parties as a 'contract of             Directive, when the imported product is deemed to be
       sale', one of the parties undertakes to manufacture a                identical to the master product if:
       specific type of motor yacht with nine specified
       alterations and to transfer it to the other party, and the
                                                                              ( i ) the active ingredient in the imported product is
       latter is required to pay DM 250 000 for it in five                          manufactured by the same company ( or by an
       instalments ?
                                                                                associated undertaking or under licence ) as the
If the first question is answered in the negative:                                  active ingredient of the master product and is the
                                                                                same within variations accepted by the registration
2 . Is the contract described under ( 1 ) a contract for the                        authority; and
      supply of goods within the meaning of point ( 3 ) of
      the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Brussels                     ( ii ) the formulation of the imported product is
       Convention ?                                                                 produced by the same company ( or by an
                                                                                associated undertaking or under licence ) as that of
3 . Under the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Brussels                        the master product and any differences in the
      Convention , in conjunction with the second paragraph                         nature, quality and quantity of the components are
      of Article 28 thereof, must account also be taken of new                      deemed by the registration authority to have no
      facts which, according to the debtor, establish that the                      material effect on the safety of humans, domestic
      court of the State of origin breached the provisions of                       animals, livestock, wildlife or the environment
      Section 4 of Title II of that Convention ?                                    generally, or on efficacy ?
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 5 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/7
2 . Does Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member State to                   took place was so plain that no reasonable third party
     allow a plant protection product imported from another               could have asserted that no such conflict existed ?
     EEA State or from outside the EEA onto the market as
     identical ( as defined in question 1 ) to a master product       (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .
     without any analysis of the actual contents of the
     imported product prior to placing on the market ?
3 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
     Article 9 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member
     State to allow a plant protection product imported from          Action brought on 1 April 1996 by the United Kingdom
     countries outside the EEA onto the market when the                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     importer or person placing the product on the market is                                  ( Case C-106/96 )
     a person without a permanent office within the EEA ?                                       ( 96/C 145/ 15 )
(M OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 1 April 1996 by the United
                                                                      Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins , Assistant
                                                                      Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                      Wyatt QC , of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 22 March                 Roosevelt.
1996 in the case of Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en
Plassengebied' BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver               The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision or
                in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV                         decisions referred to in the press release of the Commission
                         ( Case C- 1 04/96                            of 23 January 1 996, without prejudice to the competence of
                           ( 96/C 145/ 14                             the Court of Justice to declare the decision or decisions in
                                                                      issue of definitive effect .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                   The applicant asks for costs against the Commission
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of               pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
22 March 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 1 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en Plassengebied' BA and
Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver in bankruptcy of                    The United Kingdom seeks the annulment of the decision or
Mediasafe BV, on the following questions :                            decisions referred to in the press release of 23 January 1 996
                                                                      on the following grounds specified in Article 173 ( 2 ) of the
1 . Is it consistent with the First Directive ( J ) for a company     EC Treaty, namely lack of competence, infringement of an
     to be allowed to rely, as against a third party with whom        essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the
     a director generally authorized to represent the                 EC Treaty.
     company has entered into a transaction on its behalf, on
     the fact that the director lacked authority on the ground        The United Kingdom alleges lack of competence, since the
     that the transaction involved a conflict of interests            Commission incurred legal expenditure without lawful
     between him and the company ?                                    authority. The United Kingdom also alleges breach of
                                                                      Article 4 of the EC Treaty, which provides that each
2 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred
     third party had knowledge of the conflict of interests at        upon it by this Treaty .
     the time when the transaction took place, or would
     reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of               The United Kingdom also alleges breach of an essential
     that conflict of interests on the basis of the information       procedural requirement, since the challenged expenditure
     available to him at the time ?                                   was unsupported by reasoning specifying its legal basis.
                                                                      Such reasoning should have been incorporated in a decision
3 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       of the Commission addressed to and notified in full to the
     conflict of interests at the time when the transaction           Member States .


title: Case C-397/10: Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/8

         Action brought on 4 August 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-397/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and I.V. Rogalski, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by imposing the following requirements in respect of the activities of temporary work agencies — the business of providing labour must be the undertaking’s sole object (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region), the agency must take a specific legal form (in the territory of the Brussels-Capital region) and must hold minimum share capital of EUR 30 987 (in the Flemish Region) — the Kingdom of Belgium failed to comply with its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the Commission puts forward three complaints alleging infringement of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   In its first complaint, the applicant claims that the requirement that the business of providing labour must be the undertaking’s sole object constitutes a significant barrier for undertakings established in other Member States which are authorised to engage in businesses of a different nature there. That measure obliges such undertakings to amend their statutes in order to provide services, even on a temporary basis, in the Brussels-Capital region.
   In its second complaint, the Commission states that the requirement that an undertaking established in another Member State must possess a specific legal form or legal status constitutes a significant restriction on the freedom to provide services. The objective of protecting workers, relied upon by the defendant by way of justification, could be attained by less restrictive measures, such as a requirement that an undertaking must show that it has appropriate insurance.
   In its third complaint, the applicant criticises the requirement imposed by the Flemish Region that an undertaking must hold minimum share capital of EUR 30 987, since such a requirement means that some undertakings established in other Member States might have to alter their share capital in order to provide services, even on a temporary basis, in Belgium. Less restrictive measures, such as depositing a guarantee or taking out insurance, would allow the defendant to attain its objective of protecting workers.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 27(5) — Turnover tax — Scope — Chargeable event and taxable amount — Supply of goods for consideration — Theft of goods from a tax warehouse)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV v Belgian State (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 27(5) - Turnover tax - Scope - Chargeable event and taxable amount - Supply of goods for consideration - Theft of goods from a tax warehouse)
   (2005/C 217/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-435/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October 2003, received at the Court on 14 October 2003, in the proceedings between British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV and Belgian State — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J. Malenovský, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The theft of goods does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and therefore cannot as such be subject to value added tax. The circumstance that goods are, like those at issue in the main proceedings, subject to excise duty does not affect that conclusion.

               2.

               An authorisation to apply measures facilitating monitoring of the charging of value added tax, granted to a Member State on the basis of Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, does not empower that State to subject transactions to that tax other than those set out in Article 2 of the Directive. Such an authorisation thus cannot provide a legal basis for national legislation subjecting to value added tax the theft of goods from a tax warehouse.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case C-476/10: Order of the Court of 24 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria)) — proceedings brought by projektart Errichtungsgesellschaft mbH, Eva Maria Pepic, Herbert Hilbe (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Free movement of capital — Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement — Purchase by nationals of the Principality of Liechtenstein of a secondary residence in the Land of Vorarlberg (Austria) — Procedure of prior authorisation — Admissibility)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/11

         Order of the Court of 24 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria)) — proceedings brought by projektart Errichtungsgesellschaft mbH, Eva Maria Pepic, Herbert Hilbe
   (Case C-476/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Free movement of capital - Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement - Purchase by nationals of the Principality of Liechtenstein of a secondary residence in the Land of Vorarlberg (Austria) - Procedure of prior authorisation - Admissibility)
   2011/C 252/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria)

      Parties to the main proceedings

   projektart Errichtungsgesellschaft mbH, Eva Maria Pepic, Herbert Hilbe

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg — Interpretation of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5) — Purchase of a secondary residence, situated in a Member State of the European Union, by nationals of a non-Member State, party to the European Economic Area Agreement (Liechtenstein) — National rules of that Member State making such purchases subject to an authorisation procedure

      Operative part of the order

   Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, on the basis of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), prohibits a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein from purchasing a secondary residence situated in a Member State of the European Union, and therefore national authorities are required not to apply that national legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-233/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2008 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2008 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case T-233/07) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   (2008/C 128/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR I-0000 seeking annulment of that judgment.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi is ordered to pay her own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-83/03: Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier against Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 101/53
—     order the defendant to make good the non-material                         ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
      damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,                   ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;
      subject to adjustment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for            earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post                Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision          T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).
being contested in the present action, the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:             (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.
—     erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the
      decision of 22 April 2002;
—     breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom
      of expression;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)
—     infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the
      right to be heard;
                                                                                (2003/C 101/93)
—     breach of the principle of sound administration; and
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials.
                                                                          By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier                          (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-83/03)
                         (2003/C 101/92)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 ( 1)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/94)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo                By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case T-84/02:
                                                                          Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—     declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
      in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-


title: Case F-33/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-33/15)
   (2015/C 178/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, N. de Montigny and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision of the Appointing Authority to not take measures for compliance with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2013 in Case F-124/10 Labiri v EESC and the claim for damages for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied rejection decision of 20 February 2015 opposing the applicant’s complaint directed against the wrongful failure of the Appointing Authority to take the measures for compliance with the judgment of 26 February 2013 in Case F-124/10;

               —

               Order the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to pay the applicant, as non-pecuniary damages, the sum of EUR 50,00 per day from 14 December 2007 until the date that the assistance measures described in the letter of 27 May 2010 from the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions are implemented and EUR 100,00 per day as of 26 February 2013 until the date of the adoption of measures to comply with the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay the applicant default interest on those amounts from 20 October 2014 until the date of actual payment at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations plus two percentage points;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-187/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 48 of the EC Treaty - Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Person working in the public service of a Member State - Mutual recognition of periods of employment in the public service of another Member State)

text:
C 137/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.5.98
strator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.
10 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
1. the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty               General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
     must be interpreted as not applying to cases involving          Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
     imports of bananas from a third country which is not            which it:
     a party to an international agreement concluded by
     Member States before the entry into force of the                1. declares that by excluding, by regulation or
     Treaty.                                                              administrative practice, the taking into account of
                                                                          previous employment in the public service of another
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March                        Member State for the purposes of granting to an
     1995 on additional rules for the application of Council              employee in Greek public service a seniority increment
     Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff                     and of grading him on the salary scale, on the sole
     quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the                   ground that the previous employment was not
     Community and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/                     performed in Greek public service, the Hellenic
     93 is invalid to the extent to which Article 3(2) thereof            Republic is in breach of its obligations under
     imposes only on category A and C operators the                       Community law, in particular within the meaning of
     obligation to obtain export licences for bananas from                Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) of
     Colombia, Costa Rica or Nicaragua.                                   Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
                                                                          1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                          Community;
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
(2) OJ L 49, 4.3.1995, p. 13.
                                                                     2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                     (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 12 March 1998
      in Case C-187/96: Commission of the European                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)                                            (Fourth Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                      of 12 March 1998
Freedom of movement for workers Ð Article 48 of the EC
                                                                     in Case C-270/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Treaty Ð Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð
                                                                     the Tribunal Administratif, Paris): Laboratoires Sarget SA
Person working in the public service of a Member State Ð
                                                                     v. Fonds d'intervention et de reÂgularisation du marcheÂ du
Mutual recognition of periods of employment in the
                                                                                sucre (FIRS) (1)
           public service of another Member State)
                                                                     (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
                         (98/C 137/07)
                                                                     chemical products Ð Anti-asthenia products Ð Tariff
                                                                                classification)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (98/C 137/08)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       (Language of the case: French)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-187/96: Commission of the European                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Communities (Agent: Maria Patakia) v. Hellenic Republic                        published in the European Court Reports)
(Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Stamatina
Vodina) Ð application for a declaration that by excluding,           In Case C-270/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
by regulation or administrative practice, the taking into            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
account of previous employment in the public service of              Administratif (Administrative Court), Paris, for a
another Member State for the purposes of granting to an              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
employee in Greek public service a seniority increment               court between Laboratoires Sarget SA and Fonds
and of grading him on the salary scale, on the sole ground           d'intervention et de reÂgularisation du marcheÂ du sucre
that that previous employment was not performed in                   (FIRS) Ð on the interpretation of Council Regulation
Greek public service, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of          (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down
its obligations under Community law, in particular within            general rules for the production refund on certain sugar
the meaning of Articles 5 and 48 of the EC Treaty and                products used in the chemical industry (2), as amended by
Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of               Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                   of 13 June 1988 amending certain regulations concerning
within the Community (2) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the application of the common market organisation for


title: Case C-27/01: Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
24.2.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/11
Action brought on 16 January 2001 by the Commission                    Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                         lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-26/01)
                          (Case C-20/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 61/19)
                         (2001/C 61/18)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice on 16 January 2001 by the          the European Communities, represented by G. Berscheid,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Josef Christian Schieferer, of the Legal Service of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European           the Court should:
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
                                                                             trative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
(1) declare that, by failing to invite tenders for the award of              marketing of propagating material of ornamental
      the contract for the treatment of waste water in the                   plants (1), the French Republic has failed to comply with
      Municipality of Bockhorn and to arrange for notice of                  its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;
      the results of the procedure for the award of the contract
      to be published in the S Series of the Official Journal of
      the European Communities, the Federal Republic of                —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      Germany has failed to comply with its obligations under
      Article 8 in conjunction with Article 15(2) and Article
      16(1) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992         Pleas in law and main arguments
      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
      of public service contracts;
                                                                       The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 10 and
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                              249 EC is such as to oblige Member States to adopt the
                                                                       measures necessary in order to transpose directives which are
                                                                       addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the
                                                                       expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        fixed in Article 19 of the directive expired on 1 July 1999.
The German Government concedes that a Community-wide
invitation to tender for the award of the contract for the             (1) OJ L 226 of 13.8.1998, p. 16.
treatment of waste water in the Municipality of Bockhorn
should have been issued in accordance with the provisions
of Directive 92/50/EEC; notwithstanding that concession,
however, and despite the fact that an instruction was issued by
the Government of the Land requiring subordinate authorities
to ensure in a suitable manner that the contracting authorities
within that Land complied to the letter with the rules prescribed
by Community law for the award of contracts, the fact remains
that a definite infringement of the Treaty has been committed.         Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission
Moreover, the Municipality of Bockhorn has committed a                 of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
further infringement of EC law by maintaining the waste-water                                    of Luxembourg
contract and continuing to apply that contract in the same
way as before. Since the conduct contrary to the directive is
thus subsisting, it is undeniable that the defendant has failed                                  (Case C-27/01)
to take, within the time-limit laid down in the reasoned
opinion, all the national measures required in order to comply
                                                                                (2001/C 61/20)
with the directive.
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                               brought before the Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                       G. Berscheid, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.2.2001
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the         Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
      trative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the               Although, under Article 3(k) of the (former version of the) EC
      marketing of propagating material of ornamental                 Treaty, the activities of the Community include a policy in the
      plants (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to         sphere of the environment, an environmental policy forms
      comply with its obligations under Article 19 of that            part of the task of establishing a common market, as described
      directive;                                                      in Article 2 of the (former version of the) EC Treaty, only in so
                                                                      far as the achievement of the tasks in question is designed to
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.           promote ‘growth respecting the environment’. It follows from
                                                                      this that, in the implementation of Community policies,
                                                                      reasonable regard must be had to environmental aspects, but
                                                                      it does not follow that environmental considerations must be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       given precedence over the implementation of the other policies
                                                                      specified. For the purposes of the present case, this means that,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           in the context of the award of a public service contract, lengthy
Case C-26/01.                                                         transportation routes, or the avoidance of such routes, may
                                                                      not constitute a factor the effect of which is totally to preclude
                                                                      from the outset, by reference to an environmental argument,
(1) OJ L 226 of 13.8.1998, p. 16.                                     the issuing of an invitation to tender for the provision of the
                                                                      services in question and thereby to create an obstacle to trade
                                                                      in services within the Community. Consequently, the City of
                                                                      Braunschweig was not entitled, by having recourse to an
                                                                      environmental argument, illegally to evade the duty imposed
                                                                      by Community law to issue a Community-wide invitation to
                                                                      tender for a contract for refuse disposal.
                                                                      It is irrelevant that the German Government has conceded that
Action brought on 23 January 2001 by the Commission                   there has been an infringement of the Community rules
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                governing the award of public contracts and that the German
                         lic of Germany                               authorities concerned have been instructed to comply with the
                                                                      provisions of EC law governing the award of public contracts,
                                                                      since, by maintaining the contract and continuing to apply it,
                         (Case C-28/01)
                                                                      the City of Braunschweig is persisting in its infringement of
                                                                      Community law.
                         (2001/C 61/21)
                                                                      (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 January 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Josef Christian Schieferer, of the Legal Service of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
(1) declare that, by virtue of the fact that the City of
      Braunschweig awarded a contract for refuse disposal by
      negotiated procedure without prior publication of a                                       (Case C-29/01)
      contract notice, notwithstanding that the criteria laid
      down in Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50/EE (1) for an                                    (2001/C 61/22)
      award by negotiated procedure without a Community-
      wide invitation to tender were not fulfilled, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      obligations in respect of the award of public service           the Court of Justice on 24 January 2001 by the Commission
      contracts under Article 8 and Article 11(3)(c) of that          of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero
      directive;                                                      Jordana, with an address for service in Luxembourg.