title: Case T-366/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — France v Commission (State aid — Maritime cabotage — Aid implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation — Service of general economic interest — Compensation for a service additional to the basic service intended to cover peak periods during the tourist season — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Advantage — Altmark judgment)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — France v Commission
   (Case T-366/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Maritime cabotage - Aid implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for a service additional to the basic service intended to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Altmark judgment))
   (2017/C 121/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, then G. de Bergues, D. Colas, F. Alabrune and J. Bousin, and subsequently D. Colas, F. Alabrune and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/435/EU of 2 May 2013 on State aid SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (OJ 2013 L 220, p. 20).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the French Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-28/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Directive 85/511/EEC — Directive 90/425/EEC — Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC — National authorities' discretion — Principle of proportionality — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-28/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Control of foot-and-mouth disease - Directive 85/511/EEC - Directive 90/425/EEC - Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC - National authorities' discretion - Principle of proportionality - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 190/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11) — Article 11(1), first indent, Article 13(1), second indent, and Annex B — Direct effect — Laboratory not listed in Annex B — National authorities' discretion
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby rules:

               1.

               Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the particulars of a laboratory included in Annex B to that directive, which were not entered in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17 of the directive, lead to that laboratory's losing its status as a laboratory included in that annex only if those changes are likely to have repercussions on the safety of the laboratory as regards the risk of dissemination of the foot-and-mouth virus during the examinations performed by the laboratory and thus increase the risk of contamination of susceptible local animals. Moreover, Directive 85/511 does not preclude a Member State from taking the measures to control foot-and-mouth disease provided for in Article 10(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market on the basis of results of an examination carried out by a laboratory which is not included in Annex B to Directive 85/511.

               2.

               The competent authority is required to follow up the results of examinations provided by a laboratory which has the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 and to adopt, in principle, the measures provided for in that directive or any other measure required, given the need to control foot-and-mouth disease promptly and effectively. The competent authority is required to take into consideration even results provided by a laboratory which does not have that status in order to adopt, where necessary, the appropriate measures provided for by Community legislation. However, as that laboratory no longer necessarily offers the same guarantees of reliability as a laboratory having the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B, the competent authority must make sure, before taking the appropriate measures, that those results are reliable. In any event, the authority may adopt measures to control foot-and-mouth disease only in compliance with the general principles of Community law, including in particular the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


title: Case T-127/07 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Bligny v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Open competition — Conditions governing admission — Not admitted at the stage of correction of the written test — Competition notice — Incomplete application — Proof of citizenship — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Bligny v Commission
   (Case T-127/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Open competition - Conditions governing admission - Not admitted at the stage of correction of the written test - Competition notice - Incomplete application - Proof of citizenship - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 197/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (represented by: P. Lebel-Nourissat, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 in Joined Cases F-142/06 and F-142/06 AJ Bligny v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Francesco Bligny shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-396/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Mirja Juuri v Fazer Amica Oy (Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of employees' rights — Transfer of undertakings — Article 4(2) — Substantial change in working conditions involved by a transfer — Collective agreement — Termination of the contract of employment by the employee — Termination for which the employer is regarded as responsible — Consequences — Financial compensation for which the employer is liable)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Mirja Juuri v Fazer Amica Oy
   (Case C-396/07) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Transfer of undertakings - Article 4(2) - Substantial change in working conditions involved by a transfer - Collective agreement - Termination of the contract of employment by the employee - Termination for which the employer is regarded as responsible - Consequences - Financial compensation for which the employer is liable)
   (2009/C 19/11)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mirja Juuri

      Defendant: Fazer Amica Oy
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Responsibility of the employer to an employee who has himself terminated his contract of employment after his working conditions have become substantially worse following the transfer of an undertaking which has resulted in a different collective agreement becoming applicable
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that, in cases where the termination of a contract of employment or an employment relationship is brought about because the conditions for the applicability of that provision have been met, independently of any failure on the part of the transferee employer to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Member States are not required to guarantee the employee a right to financial compensation, for which the transferee employer is liable, in accordance with the same conditions as the right upon which an employee can rely where the contract of employment or the employment relationship is unlawfully terminated by his employer. However, the national court is required, in a case within its jurisdiction, to ensure that, at the very least, the transferee employer in such a case bears the consequences that the applicable national law attaches to termination by an employer of the contract of employment or the employment relationship, such as the payment of the salary and other benefits relating, under that law, to the notice period with which an employer must comply.
   It is for the referring court to assess the situation at issue in the case before it in the light of the interpretation of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23 as meaning that the continued observance of the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement which expires on the date of the transfer of the undertaking is not guaranteed after that date.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T -327/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Muller Marine and Others v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Muller Marine and Others v Commission
   (Case T -327/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/110)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-13/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 11 January 2010 — Knubben Dak-en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 11 January 2010 — Knubben Dak-en Leidekkersbedrijf BV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-13/10)
   2010/C 80/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Knubben Dak- en Leidekkersbedrijf BV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law, in particular the principle of the freedom to provide services as laid down in Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 EC), preclude rules such as those laid down in Articles 1 and 1a of Belgian Royal Decree No 20 of 20 July 1970, under which the reduced VAT rate may be applied to construction work only if the service provider is registered in Belgium as a contractor in accordance with Articles 400 and 401 of the Wetboek van Inkomstenbelastingen (Belgian Income Tax Code) 1992?

               2.

               Does Community law, in particular the principle of the freedom to provide services as laid down in Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 EC), preclude rules such as those laid down in Articles 400 and 401 of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992 and in the Royal Decree of 26 December 1998, under which registration as a contractor in Belgium applies fully and identically to Belgian service providers and to service providers established in another Member State of the European Union?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo by order of that Court of 15 January 1999 in the case of Cristoforo Bertinetto against Biraghi SpA (Case C-22/99)

text:
27.3.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/9
tinente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda PuÂblica, on the following                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
questions:                                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1. May Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
     69/335/EEC (1) be relied on by a private individual in              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     dealings with the State, even if the latter has not
     transposed that directive into national law?
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period the laws, regulations and administrative
2. Must the operations referred to in Article 4(3) of                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     Directive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the                       90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae
     prohibition laid down in Article 10 of the same                          intended for competitions and laying down the
     Community measure, in such a way as to preclude the                      conditions for participation therein (1), the Republic of
     collection, under the directive, not only of the tax on                  Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     the raising of capital but also of any other levy, of                    Treaty and that directive.
     whatever kind, in particular one that is a charge rather
     than a tax?
                                                                         2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of the same directive be
     interpreted as meaning that the fees payable to the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     notary for recordal in a (legally binding) public
     instrument of resolutions increasing capital or
     amending statutes may not vary according to the
                                                                         On the basis of the mandatory provisions (3) of
     amount of the increase and the amount of the capital,
     respectively?                                                       Article 189 and of Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty, Member
                                                                         States are obliged to transpose the provisions of directives
                                                                         addressed to them into national law within the period
                                                                         prescribed.
4. May those fees Ð see Article 5 of the Schedule of
     Notarial Fees Ð be regarded as depending on the cost
     of the service provided?
                                                                         That period expired for Austria on 1 January 1995, and
                                                                         not all the Austrian Länder have adopted the necessary
                                                                         provisions.
5. What must such cost be construed as comprising?
     Does it include the salary of notaries and of officials in
     their offices, the facilities of such offices and the like?         (1) OJ L 224, 1.8.1990, p. 60.
6. Is it permitted and, consequently legal, having regard
     to Articles 10 and 12(1) of the said directive, for any
     fee to be charged in excess of that cost? And if so, to
     what extent?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the        dariale di Pinerolo by order of that Court of 15 January
    raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).   1999 in the case of Cristoforo Bertinetto against Biraghi
                                                                                SpA
                                                                                (Case C-22/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/18)
Action brought on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against the Republic of                         European Communities by order of the Pretura Circonda-
                               Austria                                   riale (District Magistrate's Court) (Pinerolo) of 15 January
                          (Case C-20/99)                                 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 February 1999,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristoforo
                          (1999/C 86/17)                                 Bertinetto against Biraghi SpA on the following question:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                    Does Article 3 of Council Regulation No 804/68 (1)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  preclude the Italian State from regulating by statute the
on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of the European                     terms of intertrade agreements designed to fix milk prices
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                in advance in accordance with the procedures and legal
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
consequences provided for in Law No 88 of 16 March                      control of goods originating outside French territory, and
1988 (2)?                                                               thus constitute measures which are applicable with
                                                                        distinction' within the meaning of the Court's case-law.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 176.
                                                                        Having regard to their nature and purpose, the provisions
(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 69 of               at issue do not constitute an appropriate instrument for
    23.3.1988, Vol. V, p. 2469.                                         guaranteeing the safety of purchasers of spare parts for
                                                                        motor vehicles; moreover, the French authorities have
                                                                        produced no evidence showing that the goods withheld
                                                                        did in fact involve a risk to the safety and life of
                                                                        individuals. In any event, Article 36 of the Treaty cannot
                                                                        be relied on by a Member State with a view to protecting
                                                                        interests located on the territory of another Member State.
Action brought on 2 February 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-23/99)                                 The exclusive right conferred on the proprietor of rights in
                                                                        a design encompasses the manufacture and marketing of
                         (1999/C 86/19)                                 the goods in question on the national territory, and,
                                                                        having regard to the principle of the territoriality of
                                                                        industrial property rights, it cannot have the effect of
An action against the French Republic was brought before                protecting those rights on markets other than the national
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     market. The mere transit through French territory of
2 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                       goods which have not been manufactured there and which
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                         are not intended to be marketed there does not in itself
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a                constitute an infringement of the exclusive right,
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,              recognised under French law, held by the proprietor of the
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                        rights in a design.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
Ð declare that, by implementing, pursuant to the Code                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic
     de la ProprieÂteÂ Intellectuelle (Intellectual Property                                     of Germany
     Code), procedures for the retention by the customs                                        (Case C-24/99)
     authorities of goods legally manufactured in a
     Member State of the European Community which are                                          (1999/C 86/20)
     intended, following their transit through French
     territory, to be placed on the market in another
     Member State where they may be legally marketed,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;                                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Götz zur
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           Hausen, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     C 254, Kirchberg.
Infringement of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty: the
legality, under Community law, of the retention by the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
customs authorities in France of spare parts for motor
vehicles which have been manufactured in Spain and are
intended for the Italian market must be assessed solely by              1. Declare that, by providing, in Paragraph 3 of and
reference to the provisions of Articles 30 to 36 of the                     point 8 in the Annex to the Gesetz über die Umwelt-
Treaty, concerning the free movement of goods, since there                  verträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on the assessment of
has not yet been any harmonisation at Community level of                    effects on the environment) of 12 February 1990, in
the conditions and detailed rules governing the protection                  Paragraph 17 of the Fernstrassengesetz (Law on trunk
of designs for such parts. The French legislative provisions                roads) of 14 April 1994 and in Paragraph 8 of the
at issue in the present case concern the conferment on the                  Luftverkehrsgesetz (Law on air traffic) of 17 December,
French customs authorities of a power which they may                        that projects are in certain circumstances to be exempt
exercise in the context of the controls carried out by them.                from the obligation to carry out assessments of their
Those provisions specifically relate, therefore, to the                     effects on the environment, the Federal Republic of


title: Case C-332/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 July 2007 — Josef Holzinger v Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 July 2007 — Josef Holzinger v Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur
   (Case C-332/07)
   (2007/C 269/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josef Holzinger

      Defendant: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 9(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) directly effective?

               2.

               Is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that periods of employment completed in Switzerland before the entry into force of the Agreement (1 June 2002) must be taken into account for the purposes of advancement in comparable employment subsequently pursued in a Member State of the European Community, irrespective of when those periods of employment were completed?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Case C-556/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(2) and 14(2) — Infrastructure manager — Organisational and decision-making independence — Holding company structure — Directive 2001/14 — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) — Setting charges on the basis of direct costs — Levying of charges — Direct costs — Total costs — Directive 2001/14 — Article 6(2) — No incentive to reduce costs — Directive 91/440 — Article 10(7) — Directive 2001/14 — Article 30(4) — Regulatory body — Powers)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-556/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(2) and 14(2) - Infrastructure manager - Organisational and decision-making independence - Holding company structure - Directive 2001/14 - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) - Setting charges on the basis of direct costs - Levying of charges - Direct costs - Total costs - Directive 2001/14 - Article 6(2) - No incentive to reduce costs - Directive 91/440 - Article 10(7) - Directive 2001/14 - Article 30(4) - Regulatory body - Powers)
   2013/C 114/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents, and R. Van der Hout, advocaat)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the necessary provisions to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 2, 6(2), 7(3), 8(1), 14(2) and 30(4) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case F-58/15: Action brought on 20 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/47

         Action brought on 20 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-58/15)
   (2015/C 213/76)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to reimburse the medical expenses of the applicant’s spouse, under her JSIS top-up cover, and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Ispra settlements office of 9 July 2014 refusing to reimburse the medical expenses set out in the applicant’s request of 3 January 2014;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 September 2014, supplemented by the note of 29 September 2014;

               —

               order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred by the applicant;

               —

               order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, evaluated on equitable principles at EUR 5  000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


C 264/40              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
       Removal from the register of Case T-288/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-111/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/70)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/72)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 16 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
T-288/99: Evers V.O.F. v Commission of the European Com-                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-111/03:
                                                                         Michel Nolin v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-318/99 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/71)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 R
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/73)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     (Language of the case: French)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-318/99: Avia Nederland Coöperatie U.A. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 5 August 2003 the President of the Court of First
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.


title: Case C-55/02: Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

text:
C 97/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Italian                        The Italian Government considers that it is constrained to
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                     challenge the Commission’s decision in order to prevent the
                              munities                                   definitive nature of that decision from constituting an obstacle
                                                                         to the effects of the judgment to be delivered in Case C-231/00.
                          (Case C-54/02)
                                                                         In addition to challenging the reduction in the advances and
                                                                         in any event the definitive nature of the Commission’s
                          (2002/C 97/12)                                 determination, the Italian Government seeks annulment of the
                                                                         contested decision on the ground that it infringes Articles 3, 5
                                                                         and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and inasmuch as (in
                                                                         relation to the 1995/96 period) it provides for reductions in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                advances which are greater than the levies which are to be paid
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             to it.
Communities on 14 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Gianni De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                         1995/96 and 1996/97 periods: claim for default interest
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In calculating the amount of the interest due on the additional
                                                                         levy payable each month for the period following the prescri-
—     annul Commission Decision 2001/889/EC of 12 Decem-                 bed date (1 September 1996 and 1 September 1997 respecti-
      ber 2001 in so far as it:                                          vely), the Commission has correctly excluded from the capital
                                                                         sum the amounts declared to the EAGGF from 1 September
      (a)   provides for a reduction in the advances on agricul-         1996 (and 1997) to December 2001; however, it has not
            tural expenditure, taking into account the interest          taken account of the reductions in the advances made in the
            relating thereto;                                            course of 1997.
      (b) alternatively, provides definitively rather than provi-        For the 1995/96 period, the Commission, working on the
            sionally for a reduction in the advances on agricultu-       basis of the reductions in the advances granted to Italy for
            ral expenditure, taking into account the interest            agricultural expenditure, has already obtained for the assets of
            relating thereto;                                            the Fund the entire amount of the additional levies (indeed, the
                                                                         reduction in the advance was even greater).
      (c)   fails to reimburse to Italy the sum of
            LIT 45 145 363 199 (EUR 23 315 634,29), the
            same having been improperly withheld;                        Likewise, the reduction in the advances for the 1996/97
                                                                         period, although not sufficient to cover the entire amount of
                                                                         the additional levies, was not taken into account in the interest
      (d) incorrectly determines the amount of any interest
                                                                         calculation.
            which may be due to the Fund without taking
            account of the reductions made in the advances;
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(1), p. 218.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
1996/97 period: reduction in advances and refusal of financing
                                                                                (Case C-55/02)
In Case C-231/00 Lattepiù the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per il Lazio has referred for a preliminary ruling
under Article 234 EC a question on the correct interpretation                                       (2002/C 97/13)
of the Community rules applicable in the matter and on
whether the national rules should be disapplied. In those
circumstances, the Commission’s decision to exclude certain
expenditure by Italy from Community financing appears                    An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
unacceptable on account of its definitive nature, which does             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
not seem to take account of the question referred for a                  22 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
preliminary ruling in the pending Case C-231/00, referred to             Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and Miguel França,
above.                                                                   acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 97/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                lic
—     Declare that, by restricting the concept of ‘collective
      redundancies’ to redundancies for structural, technologi-                                       (Case C-59/02)
      cal or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend the
      concept to redundancies for any other reason not specific
      to the workforce itself, the Portuguese Republic has failed                                    (2002/C 97/14)
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of
      Directive 98/59/EC; (1)
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February
                                                                            2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, Legal
                                                                            Advisers.
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare that, by not adopting or, in any event, by failing
                                                                                to communicate to the Commission (all) the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The Commission takes the view that the concept of collective                      comply with Council Directive 1999/86/EC (1) of 11 No-
redundancies in Portuguese law does not cover all the cases of                    vember 1999 adapting to technical progress Directive
collective redundancies envisaged by the directive. For exam-                     76/763/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
ple, it does not cover redundancies declared by an employer                       Member States relating to passenger seats for wheeled
for reasons unrelated to the workforce where the undertaking                      agricultural or forestry tractors, the Hellenic Republic has
is wound up or liquidated, sold, the premises burnt down or                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that
other cases of force majeur, or where the undertaking has                         directive;
ceased trading on the death of its owner. The current situation
not only undermines the protection of workers, it is also                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
manifestly contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Without
calling in question the constitutional provisions which guaran-
tee workers’ right to work, the Commission points out that in
any event that does not make good the inadequate transpo-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
sition of a directive whose purpose is to strengthen the
protection of workers in the event of collective redundancies
and to provide workers with certain guarantees as regards                   In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
observance of the rules and procedure for redundancies.                     directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Thirdly, by relying on the case law and the rules of Portuguese             each Member State to which they are addressed.
law according to which the directive would not be applicable
to collective redundancies for reasons not specific to the
workforce, since such cases would be time-barred, the Portug-               Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
uese authorities have improperly restricted the scope of the                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
directive. Finally, the Commission considers that to accept the             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
argument that application of the rules laid down in the                     or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
directive is ‘not viable’ in those cases where termination of               Community.
the employment contract which under Portuguese law is
considered to limit rights of action, would amount to acknowl-
edging that a Member State may invoke provisions of domestic                It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
law to justify failure to fulfil its obligations under a Community          measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
directive, which is manifestly contrary to Community law.
                                                                            The Commission records that until now, despite the expiry on
                                                                            1 January 2001 of the period laid down, the Hellenic Republic
(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation         has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
    of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundan-       ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
    cies. OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 297, 18.11.1999, p. 22.


title: Case C-176/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2001 by PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen plc) against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-89/98 between National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and Commission of the European Communities, supported by British Coal Corporation, International Power plc (formerly National Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen plc)

text:
C 200/44               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.7.2001
Appeal brought on 23 April 2001 by PowerGen (UK) plc                    b)    in other proceedings [T-57/91, NALOO v. Com-
(formerly PowerGen plc) against the judgment delivered                        mission (2)], the Court of First Instance has taken the view
on 7 February 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                         that the Supplemental Complaint was a fresh complaint
of First Instance of the European Communities in case                         and it follows that the force of res judicata precluded the
T-89/98 (1) between National Association of Licensed                          Court of First Instance from concluding in the present
Opencast Operators (NALOO) and Commission of the                              proceedings that the Supplemental Complaint constituted
European Communities, supported by British Coal Cor-                          a part of the single complaint that was at issue in case
poration, International Power plc (formerly National                          T-57/91;
Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen
                               plc)
                                                                        c)    the Commission could not have dealt with the Sup-
                                                                              plemental Complaint otherwise than on the basis that it
                        (Case C-176/01 P)                                     was a fresh complaint.
                         (2001/C 200/80)                                The Court of First Instance also erred in finding that the
                                                                        Supplemental Complaint referred to existing infringements.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-89/98 between National
Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and                  Misinterpretation of Article 63(1) of the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                    ECSC Treaty
British Coal Corporation, International Power plc (formerly
National Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly Power-
Gen plc), was brought before the Court of Justice of the                PowerGen submits that the Court of First Instance erred in the
European Communities on 23 April 2001 by PowerGen (UK)                  following respects:
plc (formerly PowerGen plc), having its registered in London,
represented by K.P.E. Lasok QC, and P. Lomas, solicitor.
                                                                        —     in holding that the question of the Commission’s power
                                                                              to adopt legal measures other than recommendations
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                   was irrelevant;
(a)   set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in          —     in reaching the conclusion that the Commission had
      case T-89/98, NALOO v. Commission, to the extent that                   power to investigate the Supplemental Complaint, with-
      it concerns the application of Article 63(1) of the ECSC                out considering whether or not any legal measures could
      Treaty;                                                                 result from such an investigation;
(b) to that extent dismiss NALOO’s application for the                  —     in implying that it is possible that the Commission has a
      annulment of the decision of the Commission dated                       power to adopt a decision or make a ‘finding’, not
      27 April 1998 in case IV/E-3/NALOO; and                                 contained in any recommendation, that is capable of
                                                                              generating a right of action in damages in respect of
(c)   order the Commission and NALOO to pay PowerGen’s                        systematic discrimination that is alleged to have taken
      costs.                                                                  place in the past; no such power is conferred by
                                                                              Article 63(1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Legal Certainty
The ‘single object’ of NALOO’s Complaint
                                                                        The Appellant puts forward the following grounds in support
                                                                        of its submission that the Court of First Instance has erred:
The Court of First Instance held that ‘the infringements alleged
by NALOO for the years 1986/1987 to 1989/1990’ had been                 —     the Court of First Instance seems to have construed the
the subject of ‘a single complaint’ received by the Commission                principle of legal certainty as operating solely as between
in 1990, the Supplemental Complaint ‘being merely an                          the Commission and NALOO;
expansion of that of 1990’. The Appellant submits that the
Court of First Instance has erred in law because:                       —     the fact that the original complaint referred to the pre-
                                                                              1 April 1990 period supports, instead of undermines, the
a)    the Supplemental Complaint and the 1990 Complaint                       argument that the 1998 Decision was justified on the
      did not constitute ‘a single complaint’;                                ground of legal certainty;
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 200/45
—      the suggestion that it was permissible for NALOO to               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
       supplement its 1990 complaint because it could not have           Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court
       challenged the May 1991 Decision is incorrect and, even           of 13 February 2001 in the case of Impresa Binda &
       if it was permissible for NALOO to act in that way, it was        C. s.p.a. against Comune di Torino, intervener: ED.ART.
       not permissible for NALOO to wait three years before                                               s.r.l.
       submitting the Supplemental Complaint;
—      the Court of First Instance’s conclusion that the 1998                                      (Case C-179/01)
       Decision did not merely confirm a decision that had
       already been made is misconceived and wrong so far as
       the Article 63 (1) aspect of the Supplemental Complaint                                    (2001/C 200/81)
       is concerned;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—      the fact that the pre-1 April 1990 situation had been             European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
       regarded as closed by the Commission and NALOO on                 (Council of State), sitting in its judicial capacity, of 13 February
       the basis of a mistake as to the juridiction of domestic          2001, received at the Court Registry on 24 April 2001, for a
       courts is irrelevant;                                             preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a.
                                                                         against Comune di Torino, intervener: ED.ART. s.r.l., on the
                                                                         following questions:
—      NALOO’s claim, and the Court of First Instance’s apparent
       acceptance of it, blatantly offend the principles of legal
       certainty and non-retrospectivity because its case is that        1.   In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
       conduct that was not, at the time of its commission, in                excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
       breach of any legal prohibition or right that the members              their tenders explanations concerning components of the
       of NALOO could at that time invoke before a national                   price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
       court, can at any time in the future (and after the conduct            specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle
       has ceased) produce for the benefit of the members of                  to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
       NALOO a right to claim damages.
                                                                         2.   Does the establishment of a mechanism for automatically
                                                                              identifying tenders which overstep a threshold indicative
                                                                              of irregularities and whose validity should therefore be
The Commission’s obligation to investigate                                    checked, based on an ad hoc test and an arithmetical
NALOO’s complaint                                                             mean, which is such that undertakings are unable to
                                                                              ascertain that threshold in advance, represent an obstacle
                                                                              to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
Since NALOO’s Supplemental Complaint did not seek, and
was not directed at seeking, the adoption of a recommendation            3.   Does the fact that provision is made for a prior exchange
under Article 63(1), the Commission lay under no obligation                   of views, without the undertaking which has allegedly
to investigate it and the Court of First Instance erred in holding            submitted an irregular tender having an opportunity to
otherwise.                                                                    state its reasons, after the opening of the envelopes and
                                                                              before the adoption of the measure excluding it, represent
                                                                              an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4) of Direc-
The alleged failure of the Commission to                                      tive 93/37?
take into account the available evidence
                                                                         4.   Does a provision under which the contracting authority
                                                                              may take account of explanations relating solely to the
The reasons on which the Article 63(1) aspect of the 1998                     economy of the construction method or the technical
Decision was based were set out in that decision. Those                       solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
reasons did not refer to the facts or the evidence because they               ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
were not relevant to the basis on which the Commission made                   the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
its decision. A decision cannot be annulled on the ground that
it fails to state the reasons on which it was not based and it           5.   Does the [exclusion of] explanations relating solely to
follows that the Court of First Instance erred in holding that                items for which minimum values can be inferred from
the 1998 Decision was vitiated by a failure to state reasons.                 official lists represent an obstacle to the application of
                                                                              Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
(2) [1996] ECR II-705.                                                   (1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).


title: Case C-572/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Exclusive reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Article 5(2)(a) and (b) — Reprography exception — Private copying exception — Requirement for consistent application of exceptions — Concept of ‘fair compensation’ — Recovery of remuneration as fair compensation for multifunction printers — Proportional remunerative payment — Lump-sum remunerative payment — Accumulation of lump-sum and proportional remunerative payments — Method of calculation — Recipients of fair compensation — Authors and publishers — Sheet music)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL
   (Case C-572/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(2)(a) and (b) - Reprography exception - Private copying exception - Requirement for consistent application of exceptions - Concept of ‘fair compensation’ - Recovery of remuneration as fair compensation for multifunction printers - Proportional remunerative payment - Lump-sum remunerative payment - Accumulation of lump-sum and proportional remunerative payments - Method of calculation - Recipients of fair compensation - Authors and publishers - Sheet music))
   (2016/C 016/03)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL

      Defendant: Reprobel SCRL

      Intervening party: Epson Europe BV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the phrase ‘fair compensation’ contained in those provisions, it is necessary to draw a distinction according to whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.

               2.

               Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the Member State in question to allocate a part of the fair compensation payable to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, those publishers being under no obligation to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived.

               3.

               Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers the copying of sheet music, and preclude such legislation which introduces an undifferentiated system for recovering fair compensation which also covers counterfeit reproductions made from unlawful sources.

               4.

               Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which introduces a system that combines, in order to finance the fair compensation payable to rightholders, two forms of remuneration, namely, first, lump-sum remuneration paid prior to the reproduction operation by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, and, second, proportional remuneration paid after that reproduction operation and determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which is payable by the natural or legal persons who make those copies, in so far as:

                           —

                           the lump-sum remuneration paid in advance is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the device concerned is capable of producing copies;

                           —

                           the proportional remuneration recovered after the fact varies according to whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the recovery of that remuneration;

                           —

                           the combined system, taken as a whole, does not include mechanisms, in particular for reimbursement, which allow the complementary application of the criterion of actual harm suffered and the criterion of harm established as a lump sum in respect of different categories of users.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-43/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/18

         Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Commission v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-43/12)
   2012/C 98/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn and R. Troosters, Agents)

      Defendant: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Directive 2011/82/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences; (1)

               —

               declare that the effects of Directive 2011/82/EU are to be regarded as definitive;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This application seeks to bring an action for annulment against Directive 2011/82/EU. The Commission disputes the legal basis chosen. It claims that Article 87(2) TFEU is not the appropriate legal basis, as the directive seeks to introduce a mechanism for the exchange of information between Member States that covers road traffic offences, regardless of their administrative or criminal nature. Article 87 refers only to police cooperation between the competent authorities in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences. In the opinion of the Commission, the proper legal basis is Article 91(1) TFEU. The purpose of the directive is to improve road safety, which is one of the common transport policy areas expressly provided for in Article 91(1)(c).

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 288, p. 1.


title: Case C-562/10: Action brought on 30 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Action brought on 30 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-562/10)
   2011/C 63/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F.W. Bulst and I. Rogalski)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:

               —

               The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU by

                           1.

                           limiting entitlement to care allowance, pursuant to the wording of Paragraph 34(1)(1) of SGB XI (Social Security Code), to a maximum of six weeks where a person reliant on care temporarily stays in another Member State;

                           2.

                           not providing for, or by excluding through Paragraph 34(1)(1) SGB XI, reimbursement of care-related benefits in kind at the same rate as granted in Germany in respect of care services used by a person reliant on care staying temporarily in another Member State and supplied by a service provider established in another Member State;

                           3.

                           not reimbursing costs relating to the hire of care equipment where a person reliant on care stays temporarily in another Member State, or by excluding reimbursement through Paragraph 34(1)(1) SGB XI, even where those costs would be reimbursed in Germany or the care equipment would be provided and the reimbursement would not lead to a twofold increase or other increase in the costs of the services granted in Germany.

               —

               The Federal Republic of Germany must pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of this action is the German care insurance scheme, according to which persons reliant on care who receive benefits from the statutory (social) care insurance scheme are not able to avail themselves of those benefits to the same extent when they stay temporarily in another Member State and (wish to) avail themselves of care services or care allowances in that Member State. In the event of a temporary stay in another Member State, the provisions at issue relating to care benefits in kind, care allowances and care equipment provide for significantly lower benefits than in the case of care received in Germany.
   The Commission is of the view that the rules at issue are not compatible with Article 56 TFEU, because they make it significantly harder for individuals to avail themselves of care services in another Member State and that this is not justified by overriding reasons of public interest or necessary. Care services, as well as the hire of care equipment, are services which are supplied for consideration, and constitute in this respect a service within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU. Such services therefore fall within the scope of the provisions on the freedom to provide services. In its case-law on the reimbursement of medical treatment costs incurred in another Member State, the Court of Justice has held that in the course of the exercise of their powers to organise their social security systems, Member States must have regard to Community law. The fact that a rule falls within the sphere of social security does not therefore preclude the application of Article 56 TFEU.
   With regard to the rules on care allowances, a (discriminatory) restriction exists in so far as where an insured person is staying abroad, his entitlement to a care allowance is limited to a maximum of only six weeks. This makes it more difficult for a person reliant on care to avail himself of care services abroad after that period.
   With regard to the rules on care-related benefits in kind, a (discriminatory) restriction exists in so far as reimbursement of the costs of such benefits, which are received by a person reliant on care staying temporarily in another Member State and are supplied by a service provider established in another Member State, is not provided for or is excluded. The fact that in Germany there is no reimbursement of the costs of care-related benefits in kind provided by institutions with which the care fund has not concluded a service agreement, as the Federal Government pleads, does not alter that assessment. In Germany large numbers of suppliers have concluded service agreements. By contrast, the Commission is not aware of any such suppliers whatsoever in other Member States. In this respect, insured persons (or those reliant on care) are in principle excluded from availing themselves of care-related benefits in kind in another Member State under the social insurance scheme, whereas such persons can so avail themselves in Germany, albeit not with every supplier.
   Lastly, with regard to the rules on the provision of care equipment, a (discriminatory) exists in so far as the costs of hire (and use) of such care equipment are not reimbursed in other Member States even if they would be reimbursed in the event of care provided in Germany.
   According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU requires not only the elimination of all discrimination of service providers on the basis of their nationality, but also the removal of all restrictions — even if they apply without distinction to domestic service providers and to those from other Member States — if they are liable to prohibit or further impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services.
   The grounds of justification put forward by the German Government — protection of public health and of the financial balance of the care insurance system — are not capable of justifying the present restriction on the freedom to provide services.
   First, the restrictive rules clearly go beyond what might be necessary to protect the quality of the services in question or public health. Thus, reimbursement of costs incurred in another Member State is excluded on a general basis and independently of any quality assessment. Consequently, there is also no reimbursement of costs even if a sufficient quality of care is ensured and a risk to the health of the person reliant on care has been ruled out.
   Secondly, the German rules, which exclude reimbursement of costs incurred abroad and which are in any event much lower than what is financed in Germany, are not necessary to prevent a significant risk to the financial balance of the social security system. Lastly, in order to prevent a restriction on the freedom to provide services, the costs arising from recourse to care services abroad must be reimbursed only to the same extent that they would be reimbursed for such services in Germany.


title: Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05  ( OJ C 22, 28.1.2006 p. 26 )

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/47

         Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05

      (
            Official Journal of the European Union C 22, 28 January 2006, p. 26
         )

   (2006/C 48/86)
   The Official Journal notice in Joined Cases T-130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05 should read as follows:

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2005 — Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission
         (Joined Cases T -130/05, T-160/05 and T-183/05) (1)

         (2006/C 22/52)

            Language of the case: French

         The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that Case T-183/05 be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case C-204/02 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Bass plc

text:
10.8.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin
                                                                          Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by Bass plc, was brought before the Court of Justice
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 9.4, 21.3
                                                                          of the European Communities on 3 June 2002 by Colin
      and 22.6 of Royal Decree No 2822/1998, under which
                                                                          Joynson, represented by B. Bedford, Barrister, instructed by
      motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, mopeds and bicycles
                                                                          Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors.
      may not tow a trailer or semi trailer, the Kingdom of
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
      28 and 49 EC and Article 11 of the European Economic
      Area (EEA) Agreement;
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                          a)    set aside the judgment appealed against in whole; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           b)    grant the relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance; alternatively
The total prohibition on the use on the road of a two- or three-
                                                                          c)    remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
wheeled vehicle towing a trailer constitutes, first, an obstacle
                                                                                event
to the importation of that type of vehicle from other Member
States or from the signatories to the EEA Agreement. Secondly,
such prohibition, inasmuch as it applies to persons travelling
to Spain in vehicles registered in other Member States, may               d)    order the defendant to pay the appellant’s costs.
constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons
and to the freedom to provide services. The Commission
points out that there is no technical reason to justify the
absolute ban adopted by the Spanish Government which
affects vehicles which fully meet all safety requirements for
their use on the public highway. Nor does the nature of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Spanish roads justify total banning from the road of two- or
three-wheeled vehicles towing a trailer, which also includes a
ban on the use of such vehicles in urban areas and on those
                                                                          The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
roads (motorways and dual carriageways, for example) which
                                                                          in law:
by their nature have eliminated the very risks highlighted by
the Spanish authorities.
                                                                          a)    In holding that the Commission, on the question of
                                                                                whether a beer supply agreement contributes to an
                                                                                improvement in distribution, was right to consider only
                                                                                the effect of possible deliberate price discrimination on
                                                                                the part of Bass plc and not the poor profitability said
                                                                                to be the consequence of the system of leases itself
                                                                                independently of any deliberate price discrimination,
Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against
the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third                      b)    In holding that a failure to specify beers in the purchasing
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          obligation by brand or denomination leading to the
Communities in Case T-231/99 (1) between Colin Joynson                          exclusion of a beer supply agreement from Regulation
and the Commission of the European Communities,                                 1984/83 (2) is, in the present case, a purely technical
                     supported by Bass plc                                      matter which does not prevent the agreement from
                                                                                complying with the spirit of that Regulation,
                       (Case C-204/02 P)
                                                                          c)    In concluding that an examination of the possibility of a
                                                                                grant of individual exemption to a beer supply under
                        (2002/C 191/31)                                         Article 81(3) EC can be limited to the application of the
                                                                                frame work analysis provided by Regulation 1984/83,
                                                                          d)    In holding that the price differential and the reference
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002                       group used to measure the differential can be limited by
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      reference to Article 14(c)(2) of Regulation 1984/83,
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/20                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
e)    In upholding the Commission in its use of the turnover                       (a)  only the right to be heard in proceedings before the
      method of assessing rent subsidy,                                                 competent authority for the recognition of another
                                                                                breeding organisation (breeding association) but
                                                                                not the right to have recognition of that other
f)    In concluding that non-contractual benefits said to be
                                                                                organisation (association) refused where recognition
      provided by Bass plc can be off-set against the price
                                                                                would endanger the preservation of the breed or
      differentials.
                                                                                jeopardise the operation or the improvement or
                                                                                selection programme of an existing organisation or
                                                                                association, and
(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 29.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on
    the application of Article 85(3) of categories of exclusive purchas-           (b) no right to challenge the grant of recognition by the
    ing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).                                         authority in the courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof),
                                                                                even where the existing organisation or association
                                                                                made submissions opposing recognition?
                                                                             (1) OJ L 192, p. 63.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the
action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österrei-
             chischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband
                          (Case C-216/02)                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                             Section d’Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                             Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut,
                          (2002/C 191/32)                                    Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
                                                                             Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
                                                                             wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion
                                                                                de l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                                            (Case C-217/02)
hof (Administrative Court) of 23 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,                                          (2002/C 191/33)
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österreichischer
Shetlandponyzuchtverband, on the following questions:
1.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of Commission Decision
      92/353/EEC (1) of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the approval or recognition of organisations and                   European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
      associations which maintain or establish stud-books for                Section d’Administration (Belgium) (Council of State, Adminis-
      registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63) confer on                    trative Section) of 28 May 2002, received at the Court Registry
      existing breeding organisations (breeding associations) a              on 13 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Michel
      right to have the competent authority refuse recognition               Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
      of another breeding organisation (another breeding                     Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
      association) if recognition of that other breeding organis-            wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de
      ation (breeding association) would endanger the preser-                l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’) on the following questions:
      vation of the breed or jeopardise the operation or the
      improvement or selection programme of an existing
                                                                             1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
      organisation or association?
                                                                                Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
                                                                                on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
2.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of the Commission                           18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
      Decision referred to in the first question preclude the                      management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
      application of a provision of national law which confers                     disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
      on an existing breeding organisation or breeding associ-                     which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
      ation                                                                        a geographical map the precise locations of the planned


title: Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (Appeals — Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 — Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides — Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible — Measure of individual scope — Aarhus Convention — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/3

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe
      (Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 - Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides - Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)
      (2015/C 073/03)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

         Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the cross-appeal;

                  2)

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300);

                  3)

                  Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union;

                  4)

                  Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

                  5)

                  Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.