Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

30 . 3 . 96 EN Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95 / 13

operations of the European Investment Bank and the
other existing financial instruments make the recipients
of Community subsidies subject to the review
procedures within the meaning of Directive
89 / 665 / EEC, even if they themselves are not contracting
authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive
93 / 37 / EEC ?

0 ) OJ No L 199, 1993, p . 54 .

( 2 ) OJ No L 193, 1993, p . 5 .

( 3 ) OJ No L 185, 1988, p . 9 .

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January

1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken - und
Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger

( Case C-45 / 96 )

( 96 / C 95 / 23 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
( Federal Court of Justice ) of 11 January 1996, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken ­
und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger on the following
question :

where a contract of suretyship is concluded under German
law between a financial institution and a natural person
who is not acting in that connection in the course of his trade
or profession, in order to secure a claim by the financial
institution against a third party in respect of a loan, is it
covered by the words ' contracts under which a trader
supplies goods or services to a consumer ' ( Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Council Directive 85 / 577 / EEC of 20 December 1985 to

protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises, OJ No L 372, 31 . 12 . 1985,
p. 31 )?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that
court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders
v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT

Inspectorate

( Case C-47 / 96 )

( 96 / C 95 / 24 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Beslagrechter ( judge
hearing attachment proceedings ) of the Rechtbank van

Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Bruges, of
6 February 1996, which was received at the Court Registry
on 16 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
BVBA Sanders v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance,
VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT
Inspectorate on the following questions :

1 . Must Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
interpreted as permitting a Member State, instead of
refunding to a taxable person a VAT credit for a given
tax period, or carrying it forward to a subsequent tax
period, to ' withhold ' the same by way of protective
attachment on the basis of an additional demand in

respect of an earlier tax period, where that additional
demand is contested in law and is thus not based on any
definitive entitlement, and where the Member State has
not obtained authorization pursuant to Article 27 of the
VAT Directive ?

2 . In the event that Question 1 is answered in the
affirmative :

do the principle of proportionality enshrined in
Community law and Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT
Directive permit the Member State to provide :

( 1 ) that the taxable person may contest the attachment

( as validated by the ' withholding ' measure ) only by
adducing evidence rebutting the allegations made
by the Treasury in the official report, and not by
challenging the actual need for, and urgency of, that

measure ;

( 2 ) that withholding may not be replaced by another
form of security nor lifted pending the delivery of
final judgment on the contested demand for
payment made by the Treasury ?

Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of

Spain

( Case C-52 / 96 )

( 96 / C 95 / 25

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Julian Currall and F. Enrique
Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg .

The Commission claims that the Court should :

1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures
necessary to ensure that officials of the Community

No C 95 / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30 . 3 . 96

institutions are able to transfer their rights to the
Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of

v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the

European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC
Treaty ; and

2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in
the field have yet been adopted .

(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259 / 68 of the Council of

29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 / 92

( OJ No L 62, 1962, p. 1 ).

by order of that court of 1 February 1996, received at the
Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
on the following question :

is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
in Article 289 et seq . of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Rechtsvordering ( Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
covered by the expression ' provisional measures ' within the
meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( TRIPS ) (*)?

(') OJ No L 336, 1994, p . 213 .

Removal from the register of Case C-402 / 95

( 96 / C 95 / 27 )
Reference for preliminary ruling from the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes An action against the Portuguese

before the Court of Justice of the

International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.

FHT Marketing Choice BV

( Case C-53 / 96 )

( 96 / C 95 / 26 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .

By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
the case be removed from the register .

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 1996

in Case T-5 89 / 93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions ( 1 )

( Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action

for damages )

( 96 / C 95 / 28 )

( Language of the case : French )

In Case T-589 / 93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and

Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
21, Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the

written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
a post as administrator of the Foundation 's publications
programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
the filling of that post, the recruitment committee 's
memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant 's application for that post, and, second, an
order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of : C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it :

1 . dismisses the action ;