title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 November 1995 in Case C-91/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): Criminal proceedings against Thierry Tranchant and Téléphone Store SARL, party liable in civil law (Commission Directive 88/301/EEC - Independence of bodies responsible for monitoring the application of technical specifications - Test laboratories)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 16/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       and (EEC) No 714/89, nor any general principle of
                        (Third Chamber)                                    Community law require Member States to introduce a
                                                                           mechanism for compensating detriment caused to
                     of 9 November 1995                                    owners of agricultural land by the introduction of a
in Case C-38/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the               system of premium rights linked to producers of
Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High                 sheepmeat, goatmeat or beef and veal, even where
Court of Justice of England and Wales ): The Queen v.                      premium rights are transferred by producers who do not
Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte                      own the land on which they farm.
            Country Landowners' Association (')
(Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and
goatmeat and in beef and veal — Grant of transferable                 2 . Consideration of Articles 13 and 15 of Regulation
premium rights to producers — Compensation for                             (EEC) No 3567192, cited above, and of Articles 39 and
                           landowners)                                     55 of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, cited above, has
                          ( 96/C 16/05 )                                   disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect their
                                                                           validity.
                                                                      (M OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-38/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen's
Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between the Queen and the Minister for
Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Country
Landowners' Association — on the interpretation and                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
validity of Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Regulation                                    of 9 November 1995
( EEC) No 3567/92 of 10 December 1992 laying down                     in Case C-91/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
detailed rules for the application of the individual limits,          Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris ): Criminal proceedings
national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in              against Thierry Tranchant and Téléphone Store SARL,
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3013/89 on the common                                     party liable in civil law (*)
organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat ( OJ
No L 362, p . 41 ), and Articles 39 and 55 of Commission              (Commission Directive 88/301/EEC — Independence of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying              bodies responsible for monitoring the application of
down detailed rules for the application of the premium                         technical specifications — Test laboratories)
schemes provided for in Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 96/C 16/06 )
No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in
beef and repealing Regulations ( EEC ) No 1244/82 and
( EEC) No 714/89 ( OJ No L 391 , p . 20 ) — the Court (Third
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                                     (Language of the case: French)
( Rapporteur), acting as President of Chamber, C. Gulmann
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 9 November 1 995 , in which it ruled:                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-91 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
1 . Neither Articles 13 and 15 of Commission Regulation               the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
     (EEC) No 3567/92 of 10 December 1992 laying down                 ( Regional Court), Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the
     detailed rules for the application of the individual limits,     criminal proceedings pending before that court against
     national reserves and transfer of rights provided for in         Thierry Tranchant and Téléphone Store SARL, party liable
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 on the common                in civil law — on the interpretation of Commission Directive
     organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat             88/301 /EEC of 16 May 1988 on competition in the markets
     nor Articles 39 and 55 of Commission Regulation                  in telecommunications terminal equipment ( OJ No L 131 ,
     (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down                 p . 73 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
     detailed rules for the application of the premium                President, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
    schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC)                  ( Rapporteur ) ( Presidents of Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler,
     No 805/68 on the common organization of the market              J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
     in beef and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82              J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 1 . 96
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General, D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social
on 9 November 1995 , the operative part is as follows:                 legislation relating to road transport does not authorize a
                                                                       driver to derogate from the provisions ofArticles 6, 7 or 8 of
                                                                       the Regulation for reasons known before the journey was
                                                                       commenced.
Article 6 of Commission Directive 88/301 /EEC of 16 May
1 988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications
terminal equipment must be interpreted as precluding the               (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
application of national rules which prohibit economic
agents from, and penalize them for, manufacturing,
importing, stocking for sale, marketing, distributing or
advertising terminal equipment without furnishing proof, in
the form of a type-approval or another document regarded
as equivalent, that such equipment conforms to certain
essential requirements relating in particular to the safety of
users and the proper functioning ofthe network where there
is no guarantee that a test laboratory responsible for
technically monitoring the conformity of the equipment
with the technical specifications is independent from                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
economic agents offering goods or services in the                                             ( Second Chamber)
telecommunications sector.
                                                                                of 16 November 1995
                                                                       in Case C-152/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                    the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent): criminal
                                                                                proceedings against Geert van Buynder (*)
                                                                       (Freedom ofestablishment — Veterinary surgeons — Purely
                                                                                internal situation)
                                                                                96/C 16/08
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          (First Chamber)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                      of 9 November 1995
in Case C-235/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              In Case C-152/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the Crown Court, Bolton ): Criminal proceedings against                of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( Court
                     Alan Geoffrey Bird ( 1 )                          of First Instance ), Ghent, for a preliminary ruling in the
 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Exceptions           criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                      for reasons of safety)                           Geert van Buynder — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
                             ( 96/C 16/07 )                            the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second Chamber), composed
                                                                       of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
                                                                       F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                                                                       Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
                (Language of the case: English)                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,
                                                                       the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-235/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Crown Court, Bolton, United                 Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not apply to a purely
 Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                      internal situation in a Member State such as that in which a
 proceedings pending before that court against Alan                     national of a Member State engages within its territory in a
 Geoffrey Bird — on the interpretation of Article 12 of                self-employed activity in respect of which he cannot rely on
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December                   any previous training acquired in another Member State.
 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
 relating to road transport ( OJ No L 370, p . 1 ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President             (M OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
 of the Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
 P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
 the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 November 1995 , the
 operative part of which is as follows :


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 January 1998 in Case T-113/96: Édouard Dubois et Fils SA v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability - Single European Act - Customs agent)

text:
28.3.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/21
Kinshasa, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the                     GonzaÂlez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 January
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                      1998 in which it:
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
TheÂreÁse, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially, Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves          1. dismisses the application;
Vieira and, subsequently, Mr Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application, first, for annulment
of the decision' of the Committee for the Administration           2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
of Delegations, contained in a memorandum of 30 April
1996, and, second, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
1998, in which it:
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                             of 6 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v.
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                            public access to Commission documents Ð Decision
                                                                    refusing access to documents Ð Protection of the public
                                                                                interest (court proceedings))
                                                                                (98/C 94/55)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          (Language of the case: German)
                     of 29 January 1998
in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA v. Council             In Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Georg
                       Communities (1)                              M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
(Non-contractual liability Ð Single European Act Ð                  8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                       Customs agent)                               European Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker) Ð
                         (98/C 94/54)                               application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                    29 May 1996 confirming its refusal to grant the applicant
                                                                    access to certain of its documents Ð the Court of First
               (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                    composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                    Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1998 in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA whose             6 February 1998, in which it:
registered office is in Roubaix (France), represented by
Pierre Ricard and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1. annuls the Commission's decision of 29 Mai 1996
Chambers of Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde v. Council of                 refusing the applicant access to certain documents held
the European Union (Agents: Guus Houttuin and Maria                     by the Commission;
Christina Giorgi) and Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,
and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) Ð application for                2. dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph                 seeks the issue of directions to the Commission;
of Article 215 of the EC Treaty and for an order requiring
the Community to make good the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant owing to the completion, as of
                                                                    3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with
the Single European Act, and the consequent abolition of
the customs agency work in which it had been engaged                (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
until that date on French territory Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. García-Valdecasas (President
of the Chamber), J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio


title: Case C-498/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain) lodged on 7 December 2006 — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial ( FOGASA )

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain) lodged on 7 December 2006 — Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (‘FOGASA’)
   (Case C-498/06)
   (2007/C 56/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maira María Robledillo Núñez

      Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (‘FOGASA’)
   Question referred
   Having regard to the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, is there no objective justification for the difference in treatment created by Article 33.2 of the Workers' Statute and, consequently, must compensation for dismissal payable to an employee pursuant to extra-judicial conciliation be included in the ambit of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, given that Article 33.1 of the Workers' Statute recognises this type of conciliation in relation to the payment by the guarantee institution of the ‘salarios de tramitación’ which also arise from the dismissal?

      (1)  OJ L 283, 1980, p. 23; EE 05/02, p. 219.

      (2)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Case C-149/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione in Ugo Fava v Comune di Carrara (Tax levied on marble extracted within municipal boundaries by reason of its transport out of the municipality — Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Partial inadmissibility — Question identical to one upon which the Court has already ruled)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 26 April 2005
   in Case C-149/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione in Ugo Fava v Comune di Carrara (1)

   (Tax levied on marble extracted within municipal boundaries by reason of its transport out of the municipality - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Partial inadmissibility - Question identical to one upon which the Court has already ruled)
   (2005/C 182/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-149/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) (Italy), made by decision of 27 October 2003, received at the Court on 23 March 2004, in the proceedings between Ugo Fava (administrator of the insolvent company, IMEG Srl) and Comune di Carrara — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 26 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible in so far as it relates to the interpretation of Articles 81 EC, 85 EC and 86 EC;

               2.

               A proportional tax on goods by weight, levied in one municipality of a Member State only on a category of goods by reason of their transport out of the municipality, is a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on exports within the meaning of Article 23 EC, notwithstanding the fact that the tax also applies to those goods whose final destination is within the Member State concerned;

               3.

               Article 23 EC may not be relied upon in support of applications for the restitution of sums levied as the tax on marble prior to 16 July 1992 except by those applicants who had commenced legal proceedings or made an equivalent complaint prior to that date.

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case F-29/09: Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Action brought on 30 March 2009 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission
   (Case F-29/09)
   2009/C 129/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg)) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels and, second, annulment of the applicants’ pay slips issued from 15 June 2008.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision to refuse to increase the purchasing power of salaries in Luxembourg to a level equivalent to that of the purchasing power of salaries in Brussels;

               —

               Annul, secondly, the applicants’ pay slips issued for the period from 15 June 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Germany, France) — eDate Advertising GmbH v X, Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Directive 2000/31/EC — Publication of information on the internet — Adverse effect on personality rights — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Law applicable to information society services)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2011 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Germany, France) — eDate Advertising GmbH v X, Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Limited
   (Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2000/31/EC - Publication of information on the internet - Adverse effect on personality rights - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Law applicable to information society services)
   2011/C 370/13
   Languages of the cases: German and French

      Referring courts

   Bundesgerichtshof, Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: eDate Advertising GmbH, Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez

      Defendants: X, MGN Limited

      Re:

   (C-509/09)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Determining which court has jurisdiction and which law applies in the case of an action brought in relation to an infringement of the right to protection of personality which may have been committed by publication of information on the internet — Criteria to be used for determining ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’
   (C-161/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Court with jurisdiction to hear an action for infringement of the right to privacy and the right of personal portrayal following the placing on-line of information and photographs on an internet site disseminated from a server housed in the territory of a Member State other that that in which the applicant is domiciled — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred — Relevance, in order to determine that place, of the number of connections to the internet page at issue effected from the State in which the applicant is domiciled, the nationality of the applicant and, where appropriate, the language in which the information at issue was disseminated

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.

               2.

               Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), must be interpreted as not requiring transposition in the form of a specific conflict-of-laws rule. Nevertheless, in relation to the coordinated field, Member States must ensure that, subject to the derogations authorised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31, the provider of an electronic commerce service is not made subject to stricter requirements than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in the Member State in which that service provider is established.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-587/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras v Gintaras Dockevičius and Jurgita Dockevičienė

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras v Gintaras Dockevičius and Jurgita Dockevičienė

   (Case C-587/15)
   (2016/C 027/21)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras

      Other parties to the proceedings in cassation: Gintaras Dockevičius and Jurgita Dockevičienė

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 2, 10(1) and (4) and 24(2) of Directive 2009/103 (1), Articles 3(4), 5(1) and (4), 6(1) and 10 of the Internal Regulations, and Article 47 of the Charter (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, in the case where:

                           —

                              a national insurers’ bureau (Bureau A) pays compensation to the party injured in a road traffic accident in the Member State in which that bureau is established because the national of another Member State who was responsible for the damage was not insured against civil liability;

                           —

                              by reason of that compensation, Bureau A is subrogated to the injured party in his rights and seeks reimbursement of the costs incurred in the settlement of the claim from the national insurers’ bureau in the country of origin of the person responsible (Bureau B);

                           —

                              Bureau B, without carrying out any independent investigation or requesting additional information, accedes to the request for reimbursement made by Bureau A;

                           —

                              Bureau B brings legal proceedings against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) seeking indemnification of the expenses which it incurred,

                     the applicant in those proceedings (Bureau B) can base its claim against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) solely on the fact of the payment of the costs made to Bureau A and it (the applicant) is not under any obligation to establish that the conditions governing the civil liability of the defendant/person responsible were satisfied (his fault, unlawful acts, the causal link and the amount of damage), and is not under any obligation to establish that the foreign law was properly applied when the injured party was compensated?

               2.

               Are point (c) of the fifth subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103 and Article 3(1) and (4) of the Internal Regulations (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that Bureau A must, before taking a final decision to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the injured party, inform, in a clear and comprehensible manner (including in regard to the language in which the information is provided), the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle (if not the same person) about the initiation of the claim-handling process and its progress, and give them sufficient time to submit their comments on, or objections to, the decision to be taken to pay compensation and/or the amount of that compensation?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative (that is to say, the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle) may require the applicant (Bureau B) to provide proof or may raise any objections or doubts concerning, inter alia, the circumstances of the road traffic accident, the application of the regulatory framework relating to civil liability of the person responsible, the amount of the damage and how it was calculated), are Articles 2, 10(1) and 24(2) of Directive 2009/103 and the second subparagraph of Articles 3(4) of the Internal Regulations (together or separately, but without limitation to the aforementioned provisions) to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, notwithstanding the fact that Bureau B did not, before the final decision was taken, request Bureau A to provide information on the interpretation of the legislation applicable in the country in which the road accident occurred and on the settlement of the claim, Bureau A must in any event provide that information to Bureau B if the latter subsequently requests it, together with any other information necessary for Bureau B establish its claim [for indemnification] against the defendants (the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle)?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative (that is to say, Bureau A is required to inform the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle about the claim-settlement process and to provide them with an opportunity to submit objections concerning liability or the amount of the damage), what consequences will failure on the part of Bureau A to comply with its duty to provide information entail for:

                           (a)

                           the obligation of Bureau B to accede to the request for reimbursement presented by Bureau A;

                           (b)

                           the obligation of the person responsible and the owner of the vehicle to indemnify Bureau B for the expenses which it has incurred?

               5.

               Are Articles 5(1) and 10 of the Internal Regulations to be understood and interpreted as meaning that the amount paid as compensation by Bureau A to the injured party is to be regarded as a non-reimbursable risk assumed by Bureau A itself (unless that risk is assumed by Bureau B) rather than a pecuniary obligation on the other person involved in the same road traffic accident, regard being had, a fortiori, to the circumstances of the present case:

                           —

                              initially, the compensation body (Bureau A) rejected the injured party’s claim for compensation;

                           —

                              for that reason, the injured party brought a legal action seeking compensation;

                           —

                              that action brought against Bureau A was dismissed by the lower courts as being unfounded and not supported by evidence;

                           —

                              an amicable settlement between the injured party and Bureau A was reached only in a higher court, when the latter pointed out that, if the parties refused to enter into an amicable settlement, the case would be referred back for fresh examination;

                           —

                              Bureau A justified its decision to enter into an amicable settlement essentially on the basis that this would avoid additional costs due to prolonged litigation;

                           —

                              in the present proceedings, no court has established the liability (fault) of the defendant involved in the road traffic accident?

      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).


title: Case T-492/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)
   (Case T-492/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
   2013/C 313/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant:‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Stütz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2011 (Case R 2168/2010-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sanitary tampon as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-617/12: Order of the Court of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Astrazeneca AB v Comptroller General of Patents (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13(1) — Concept of ‘first authorisation to place [a product] on the market in the Community’  — Authorisation issued by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (Swissmedic) — Automatic recognition in Liechtenstein — Authorisation issued by the European Medicines Agency — Period of validity of a certificate)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/7

         Order of the Court of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Astrazeneca AB v Comptroller General of Patents
   (Case C-617/12) (1)

   ((Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13(1) - Concept of ‘first authorisation to place [a product] on the market in the Community’ - Authorisation issued by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (Swissmedic) - Automatic recognition in Liechtenstein - Authorisation issued by the European Medicines Agency - Period of validity of a certificate))
   2014/C 102/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astrazeneca AB

      Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Meaning of first authorisation to place the product on the market — Swiss authorisation automatically recognised by Liechtenstein but not granted in accordance with the administrative procedure laid down by Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

      Operative part of the order

   In the context of the European Economic Area (EEA), Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that an administrative authorisation issued for a medicinal product by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products (SwissMedic), which is automatically recognised in Liechtenstein, must be regarded as the first authorisation to place that medicinal product on the market within the meaning of that provision in the European Economic Area where that authorisation predates marketing authorisations issued for the same medicinal product, either by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or by the competent authorities of European Union Member States in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, and the authorities of the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway. The fact that, on the basis of similar clinical data, the European Medicines Agency, unlike the Swiss authority, refused to grant a marketing authorisation for that medicinal product at the conclusion of its examination of those data, or the fact that the Swiss authorisation to place the product on the market was suspended by the Swiss Institute for Medicinal Products and subsequently reinstated by the latter only when the holder of the authorisation submitted additional data to it are irrelevant.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-453/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer v Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 5 — Meaning of ‘equivalent benefits’ — Equal treatment of old-age benefits of two Member States of the European Economic Area — National legislation taking into account old-age benefits received in other Member States for the purpose of calculating social security contributions)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer v Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg
   (Case C-453/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 5 - Meaning of ‘equivalent benefits’ - Equal treatment of old-age benefits of two Member States of the European Economic Area - National legislation taking into account old-age benefits received in other Member States for the purpose of calculating social security contributions))
   (2016/C 098/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

      Respondent: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

      Other party to the proceedings: Rudolf Mathis

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — both schemes being within the scope of that regulation — are equivalent benefits within the meaning of that provision, where both categories of benefits have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed prior to retirement.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case C-246/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Ibrahima Diallo v État belge

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Ibrahima Diallo v État belge
   (Case C-246/17)
   (2017/C 231/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ibrahima Diallo

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Is Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (1) to be interpreted as requiring that the decision as to whether to recognise a right of residence must be taken and notified within a period of six months, or as permitting the decision to be taken within that period but notified subsequently? If such a decision may be notified subsequently, within what period must this be done?

               (2)

               Is Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, read in conjunction with Article 5 of that directive, with Article 5(4) of [Council] Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (2) and with Articles 7, 20, 21 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted and applied as meaning that the decision adopted on that basis need only be taken within the period of six months which it prescribes, without there being any period applicable to notification or any impact whatsoever on the right of residence where notification occurs after expiry of that period?

               (3)

               For the purposes of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the right to residence of a member of the family of a Union citizen, would it be contrary to the principle of effectiveness for the national authority, following the annulment of a decision relating to such a right, once again to be allowed the full period of six months which had been available to it under Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States? If so, what further period is allowed to the national authority, following the annulment of a decision by which it refused to recognise the right at issue?

               (4)

               Are Articles 5, 10 and 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with Articles 7, 24, 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, compatible with national case-law and provisions, such as Articles 39/2(2), 40, 40a, 42 and 43 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals, and Article 52(4) of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on entry into the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals, under which a judgment delivered by the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration proceedings, Belgium) annulling a decision refusing residence on the basis of those provisions interrupts, and does not suspend, the mandatory period of six months prescribed by Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC, by Article 42 of the Law of 15 December 1980 and by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981?

               (5)

               Does Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States require that, where the period of six months laid down by Article 10(1) of that directive is exceeded, some consequence must follow, and if so, what consequence? Does that directive require or permit the consequence of exceeding the period to be the automatic grant of the residence card sought, without any finding having been made that the applicant does in fact satisfy the conditions for the enjoyment of the right which he claims?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case C-44/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy
   (Case C-44/08)
   (2008/C 107/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry, Erityisalojen Toimihenkilöliitto ERTO ry, Uusi Insinööriliitto UIL ry (formerly Insinööriliitto IL ry), Metallityöväen Liitto ry, Palvelualojen Ammattiliitto PAM ry, Suomen Ekonomiliitto — Finlands Ekonomförbund SEFE ry, Ammattiliitto SUORA ry Suomen Valtiotieteilijöitten Liitto SVAL ry — Statsvetarnas Förbund i Finland rf, Sähköalojen Ammattiliitto ry, Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK ry, Toimihenkilöunioni TU ry

      Defendant: Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation under that provision to embark on consultations when ‘contemplating collective redundancies’ of employees and ‘in good time’ requires consultations to be started when it is established from strategic decisions or changes that have been made relating to the activity that a need for collective redundancies of employees follows? Or is the provision in question to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to start consultations already arises on the basis of the employer contemplating measures or changes affecting the activity, such as a change in production capacity or a concentration of production, as a consequence of which a need for collective redundancies is to be expected?

               2.

               Having regard to the fact that the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the directive refers to the supply of information in good time during the course of the consultations, is Article 2(1) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation under that provision to start consultations when ‘contemplating’ collective redundancies and ‘in good time’ requires consultations to be started already before the employer's intentions have reached the stage at which the employer is required to identify and supply to the employees the information specified in Article 2(3)(b)?

               3.

               Is Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 2(4) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which the employer is controlled by another undertaking, the employer's obligation to start consultations with the representatives of the employees originates when either the employer or the parent company controlling the employer contemplates action for collective redundancies of employees in the employer's service?

               4.

               In the case of consultations to be carried on in a subsidiary belonging to a group, and in assessing in the light of the provisions of Article 2(4) of the directive the obligation under Article 2(1) to enter into consultations when ‘contemplating’ collective redundancies and ‘in good time’, does the obligation to start consultations already arise when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies but that intention has not yet taken concrete form as concerning the employees in the service of a particular subsidiary under its control, or does the obligation to embark on consultations within the subsidiary arise only at the stage when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies specifically in that subsidiary company?

               5.

               If the employer is an undertaking (a subsidiary belonging to a group) controlled within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the directive by another undertaking (parent company or group management), is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the consultation procedure referred to there must be concluded before the decision on collective redundancies to be implemented in the subsidiary company is taken within the parent company or the group management?

               6.

               If the directive is to be interpreted in such a way that the consultation procedure to be carried on within the subsidiary company must be concluded before the decision giving rise to collective redundancies of employees is taken within the parent company or group management, is it only a decision whose direct consequence is the implementation of collective redundancies in the subsidiary company that is relevant in that connection, or must the consultation procedure be brought to a conclusion already before a commercial or strategic decision is taken within the parent company or the group management on the basis of which collective redundancies in the subsidiary company are probable but not yet finally certain?

      (1)  Council directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).


8.4.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/31
— Nullity of the decision setting up the OLAF and of                           Removal from the register of Case T-219/94 (1)
     Regulation No 1073/1999:
     The applicants raise the objection, pursuant to Article 241                                (2000/C 102/62)
     EC, that the legal acts on which the contested decision is
     based are null and void. Both the Commission Decision of
     28 April 1999 establishing the OLAF (1) and Regulation                               (Language of the case: German)
     (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
     the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations               By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
     conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2)             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
     are invalid.                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case T-219/94, Hans-Henrich Fürstenwerth v
The Commission based the decision establishing the OLAF on              Commission of the European Communities.
Article 162 of the EC Treaty (now Article 218 EC), hence on a
provision designed to regulate the internal organisational
power, namely the Rules of Procedure. However, it is not                (1) OJ C 218 of 6.8.1994.
possible on that basis to set up a body which is in reality legally
separate from the organisational power of the Commission.
Moreover, in adopting its decision establishing the OLAF, the
Commission unlawfully relinquished part of the supervisory
powers conferred on it by Article 211 EC. In addition, it
delegated to the OLAF powers which it does not possess.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-206/95 (1)
Finally, the regulation based on the decision is likewise founded
on an insufficient legal basis, since Article 280 EC merely                                     (2000/C 102/63)
concerns the combatting of fraud within the Member States. It
does not therefore cover the Community institutions. In
addition, the OLAF’s investigatory powers go beyond any                                   (Language of the case: German)
powers that could conceivably be needed in order to investigate
criminal offences committed within the Parliament.
                                                                        By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 20.                                               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(2) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1.                                                Case T-206/95: Josef Gierse v Council of the European Union
                                                                        and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
Partial Removal from the register in Joined Cases
                     T-530/93 and Others (1)
                         (2000/C 102/61)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-15/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/64)
By order of 24 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of M.A.M. Nijenhuis and J.I.M. and W. Spikker                                 (Language of the case: French)
from the list of applicants in Case T-533/93 — Joined Cases
T-530/93 and Others, R. Bathoorn and Others v Council                   By order of 19 January 2000, the President of the First
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-15/98, Centre d’Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman a.s.b.l.
                                                                        v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.1993, C 27 of 28.1.1994, C 43 of 12.2.1994,
    C 59 of 26.2.1994, C 90 of 26.3.1994, C 103 of 11.4.1994,
    C 120 of 30.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 233 of 20.8.1994          (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
    and C 370 of 24.12.1994.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 1999 in Case C-355/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH (Article 70 of the Act of Accession of Austria - Secondary residences - Procedure relating to the acquisition of immovable property in the Tyrol - Concept of 'existing legislation')

text:
C 352/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.12.1999
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court,                     of: J.-P. Puissochet, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,          J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers),               M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 1999, in
nemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate Gen-                  which it has ruled:
eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                       The concept of existing legislation, within the meaning of Article 70
                                                                           of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added           founded, covers provisions adopted after the date of accession which
tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that      are in substance identical to the legislation previously in force or
the terms ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature’       limited to reducing or eliminating an obstacle to the exercise of
and ‘other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member            Community rights and freedoms in the earlier legislation.
State concerned’, which appear in subparagraphs (b) and (g) of that
provision respectively, do not exclude from that exemption natural
persons running a business.                                                (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 September 1999
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-61/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 7 September 1999                                 the Tariefcommissie): De Haan Beheer BV v Inspecteur
                                                                                der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam (1)
in Case C-355/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundverkehrsreferent                     (Customs duties — External transit — Fraud — Incurrence
der Tiroler Landesregierung v Beck Liegenschaftsverwal-                                      and recovery of a customs debt)
    tungsgesellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/04)
(Article 70 of the Act of Accession of Austria — Secondary
residences — Procedure relating to the acquisition of immov-
able property in the Tyrol — Concept of ’existing legislation’)                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (1999/C 352/03)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In Case C-61/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tariefcommissie
                                                                           (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     pending before that court between De Haan Beheer BV and
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam on
                                                                           the interpretation of Community law relating to the incurrence
In Case C-355/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of              and recovery of a customs debt — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberster Gerichtshof             composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
(Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
before that court between Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                  M. Wathelet, (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Tiroler Landesregierung and Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsge-               eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
sellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH, in liquidation,                     judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Intervener, Karl Hacker) — on the interpretation of Article 70
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                   1. Community law does not impose on customs authorities which
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom                    have been informed of a possible fraud in connection with
of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the                      external transit arrangements any obligation to warn a principal
European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ                         that he could incur liability for customs duty as a result of the
1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                           fraud, even where he has acted in good faith.


title: Case C-180/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai bt v Plastinnova 2000 kft (Directive 2004/48/EC — Rules governing the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought — Powers of the national court — Paris Convention — TRIPS Agreement)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai bt v Plastinnova 2000 kft
   (Case C-180/11) (1)

   (Directive 2004/48/EC - Rules governing the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought - Powers of the national court - Paris Convention - TRIPS Agreement)
   2013/C 9/19
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai bt

      Defendant: Plastinnova 2000 kft

      Intervener: Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, and of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Rules for the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought — Powers of the national court

      Operative part of the judgment

   Inasmuch as the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, interpreted in the light of Article 2(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979, and of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986 to 1994), are not applicable to an invalidation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those provisions do not preclude that, in such judicial proceedings, the court:

               —

               is not bound by the claims and other statements made by the parties and is entitled to order of its own motion the production of any evidence that it may deem necessary;

               —

               is not bound by an administrative decision made in relation to an application for invalidation or by the findings of fact in that decision, and

               —

               is not entitled to re-examine evidence which was already submitted in connection with a previous application for invalidation.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2004 in Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Similarity between two signs — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ — Earlier word mark MATRATZEN)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 28 April 2004
   in Case C-3/03 P Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Similarity between two signs - Likelihood of confusion - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word ‘Matratzen’ - Earlier word mark MATRATZEN)
   (2004/C 118/49)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-3/03 P: appeal by Matratzen Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, established in Cologne (Germany) (lawyer: W.-W. Wodrich) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2002 in Case T-6/01 Matratzen Concord v OHIM – Hukla Germany (Matratzen) [2002] ECR II-4335, seeking annulment of that judgment, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2000, refusing registration of a figurative mark as a Community trade mark (Joined Cases R 728/1999-2 and R 792/1999-2), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22. 3. 2003.


title: Case F -127/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 June 2006 — Nanbru v Parliament

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 June 2006 — Nanbru v Parliament
   (Case F -127/05) (1)

   (2006/C 190/73)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-128/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Articles 4(1) and 13 — Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 — Article 19(1)(a) — Export refunds — Advance payments on refunds — Conditions for the release of the guarantee furnished to ensure the repayment of the advance)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL
   (Case C-128/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Articles 4(1) and 13 - Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 - Article 19(1)(a) - Export refunds - Advance payments on refunds - Conditions for the release of the guarantee furnished to ensure the repayment of the advance))
   (2015/C 046/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

      Defendants: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3403/93 of 10 December 1993, must be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee furnished by an exporter to ensure the repayment of the advance received by way of export refund must not be considered to be extinguished even where it is established that the exporter submitted the acceptance of the export declaration, proof that the goods left the customs territory of the European Union within a maximum period of 60 days after that acceptance, and the proof of clearance of those products through customs in the importing third country, if the other conditions for the grant of the refund, in particular the condition of sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported, provided for in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994, are not satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 May 1997 in Case T-561/93 (92): Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
 12 . 7. 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/27
      rejecting the complaint of 6 April 1995 and, second,                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      of the opinion of the Invalidity Committee of                                           of 15 May 1997
      13 September 1994;
                                                                      in Case T-l 75/96: Georges Berthu v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( ] )
2 . dismisses the       remainder of the application as               (Economic and monetary policy — Commission proposal
      unfounded;                                                      — Action for annulment — Replacement of the term 'ecu '
                                                                      provided for in Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the term
                                                                                'euro ' — Manifest inadmissibility)
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/53
(M OJ No C 333, 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-175/96 : Georges Berthu,        a Member of the
                                                                      European Parliament, represented by       Alexandre Varault,
                                                                      of the Paris Bar, v. Commission            of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker )        — application for
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            annulment of the ' decision ' of the Commission contained
                                                                      in a proposal for a regulation submitted to the Council on
                         of 12 May 1997
                                                                      16 October 1996 'on some provisions relating to the
in Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission             introduction of the euro' ( COM(96 ) 499 final ) — the
               of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and J.
                       (Taxation of costs)                            Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                           97/C 212/52                                15 May 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      1 . The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA, established in
Brussels, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher              O OJ No C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
Vajda, of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen
Kon, Solicitor, London, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60
Avenue Gaston Diderich, against Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by Pari
Mutuel Unifié Beige, established in Brussels, and Societe             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA against
Cooperative Auxiliaire PMU Beige, established in Brussels,                        the Council of the European Union
together represented by Thomas Delahaye, Member of the                                         Case T-80/97 )
Bar of the Belgian Cour de Cassation, with an address for
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/54
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk,
13B Avenue Guillaume — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the interveners                            (Language of the case: French)
following the order of the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition, of 6 October 1995 ,
removing Case T-561 /93 from the register — the Court of              An action against the Council of the European Union was
First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Azizi,                   Communities on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA, whose
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 May                   registered office is at Luynes ( France ), represented by
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                      Jean-François Bellis and Philippe de Baere, both of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners is fixed in the sum of Bfrs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
 170 000.
                                                                      — annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 71/97
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                          in so far as it applies to the applicant,
                                                                      — order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-67/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95          LEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/25
      2 , no reasons whatever were given for the Decision of          Michael Esser-Wellié, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an
           23 September 1993 to close the proceeding in               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
           relation to 12 German undertakings and six                 & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
           Spanish undertakings .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
IV. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the fine
                                                                      — annul the defendant's Decision of 30 November 1994
      imposed should be reduced for infringement of
      Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 as regards:                 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty (IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), notified to
       1 , the gravity and duration of the infringement;                  the applicant on 3 February 1995 , in so far as that
           and                                                            Decision relates to the applicant,
      2 , the calculation of the amount of the fine .                 — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
                                                                          applicant to such amount as the Court may
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                 determine,
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek
against the Council of the European Union and the                      I. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           formal law:
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-67/95 )                                  1 . The defendant infringed essential procedural
                           ( 95/C 119/48 )                                     requirements by granting the applicant only partial
                                                                               access to documents during the administrative
                (Language of the case: German)                                 proceeding and no access whatever after the
                                                                               adoption of the Decision . The defendant based its
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        Decision on documents with which the applicant
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                         was unacquainted and also failed to translate
before the Court of First Instance of the European                             foreign-language evidence .
Communities on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek,                        2. The defendant failed to comply with the
Grefrath-Mulhausen (Federal Republic of Germany),                              Community-law requirements regarding evidence
represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                           and made findings of fact in respect of complex sets
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                      of individual circumstances and periods of time
of Dupong & Associés, 14A, Rue des Bains .                                     which were unsupported by evidence, or at any rate
                                                                               were supported by insufficient evidence.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           3 . The defendant provided inadequate and
— order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation                       contradictory reasons for its Decision and based it
     for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the                on findings which were both unsubstantiated and
     amount of DM 46 412,01 , together with 8 % interest                       incapable of verification.
     thereon from 1 July 1985 .
                                                                           4 . The calculation of the fine is defective since the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            defendant wrongly proceeds on the basis of a
                                                                               particularly serious infringement, assumes that the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                    alleged infringement lasted for an excessively long
Case T-20/94 .                                                                 period of time and calculates the fine on the basis
                                                                               of an incaccurate turnover figure and reference
                                                                               period .
                                                                               By committing these breaches, the Commission
                                                                               infringed the principle of equal treatment in
   Action brought on 25 February 1995 by Holderbank                            contradictory proceedings as well as the principles
       Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft against the                        of a fair hearing and due process.
          Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-68/95 )                              II. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           substantive law:
                           ( 95/C 119/49 )
                                                                           1 , ( a ) The applicant contests the defendant's
                (Language of tbe case: German)                                       allegations regarding the European Task Force
                                                                                and its incompatibility with Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                     EC Treaty. The applicant takes particular issue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    with the defendant's claim that the European
Instance of the European Communities on 25 February                                  Task Force remains active up to the present
1995 by Holderbank Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft,                             day: on the contrary, that body ceased activity
Jona ( Switzerland), represented by Cornelis Canenbley and                           at the end of May 1987.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February 1995 in Case C-349/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (State aid - Commission decision ordering recovery of aid - Non-compliance)

text:
 No C 87/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   8 . 4 . 95
 Economic Community and the Republic of Austria and                   obligations under the EEC Treaty and in particular under
 adopting provisions for their implementation (2), in                 Commission Decision 90/224/EEC of 24 May 1989 on aid
 particular Protocol 3 annexed thereto concerning the                 granted by the Italian Government to Aluminia and Comsal,
 definition of the concept of 'originating products' and              two State-owned undertakings in the aluminium
 methods of administrative cooperation — the Court (Fifth             industry (2) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of
 Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the                   F.A. Schockweiler (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
 Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and D.A.O. Edward                  G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.L. Murray and G. Hirsch,
 ( Rapporteur), Judges; C.O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a                gave a judgment on 23 February 1995, in which it:
judgment on 23 February 1995, the operative part of which
 is as follows:
                                                                      1 . declares that by not ordering the recovery of aid
                                                                             improperly paid in 1987 to the Aluminia undertaking
It is permissible to dispense with production of the                         and the Comsal undertaking, part of the EFIM group,
 documents mentioned in Title II of Protocol 3 to the                        the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
EEC-Austria Agreement in the version contained in Council                    obligations under the EEC Treaty and in particular
Regulation (EEC) No 1598/88 of 24 May 1988 on the                            under Commission Decision 90/224/EEC of 24 May
application of Decision No 1 /88 of the EEC-Austria Joint                    1989 on aid granted by the Italian Government to
 Committee amending Protocol 3 concerning the definition                     Aluminia and Comsal, two State-owned undertakings in
of the concept of 'originating products ' and methods of                     the aluminium industry;
administrative cooperation, where the origin ofthe goods in
issue has been established beyond doubt on the basis of
objective evidence which could not have been manipulated              2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
or falsified by those involved, where both the importer and
the exporter concerned took the steps necessary to obtain             i 1 ) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .
the documents referred to in the Protocol, and where it was           (2) OJ No L 118, 9. 5 . 1990, p. 42.
for reasons beyond their control, such as anticompetitive
conduct by other persons concerned contrary both to the
objective and the terms of the Agreement, that it was
impossible for them to produce those documents.
0 ) OJ No C 215, 10 . 8 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 300 , 31 . 12 . 1972, p. 1 .                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 23 February 1995
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
                                                                     la Audiencia Nacional): criminal proceedings against Aldo
                                                                     Bordessa and against Vicente Mari Mellado, Concepción
                                                                                Barbero Maestre l 1 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (Council Directive 88/361/EEC — National authorization
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                   for the transfer of money in the form of banknotes)
                     of 23 February 1995                                                          ( 95/C 87/04 )
in    Case   C-349/93 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Italian Republic (*)                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
(State aid — Commission decision ordering recovery ofaid
                      — Non-compliance)
                                                                     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                            ( 95/C 87/03 )
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      In Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 : references to the
                                                                     Court under Article 1 77 of the EEC Treaty from the Juzgado
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional (National High
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Court) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                     pending before that court against Aldo Bordessa ( Case
                                                                     C-358/93 ) and Vicente Man Mellado, Conception Barbero
In Case C-349/93 : Commission of the European                        Maestre ( Case C-416/93 ) — on the interpretation of
Communities (Agents: Antonino Abate and Vittorio Di                  Articles 30 and 59 of the EEC Treaty, and Articles 1 and 4 of
Bucci ) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Luigi Ferrari Bravo) —           Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the
application for a declaration that by not ordering the               implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) — the Court,
repayment of aid improperly paid in 1987 to the Aluminia             composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F.A.
undertaking and the Comsal undertaking, part of the EFIM             Schockweiler and P.J.G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), (Presidents
group, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its            of Chambers ), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho