CELEX: C1995/268/22
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Athens, by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P. Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National Tobacco Board) (Case C-244/95)

No C 268/10           PEN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
 ( OJ No L 139, p . 19 ), and Council Directive 92/31/EEC               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
amending Directive 89/336/EEC ( OJ No L 126, p. 11 ),                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1 )           measures needed to comply with Council Directive
and Article 2 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned directives and                    91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty — the Courth ( Fifth Chamber),                 the laws of the Member States concerning
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.                       telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L.                     mutual recognition of their conformity, the Hellenic
Sévon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
R. Grass , for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       Treaty;
 11 August 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 1 . declares that, by omitting to bring into force the laws,          (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
     1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and
     Council Directive 92/31 /EEC of 28 April 1992
     amending Directive 89/336/EEC, Ireland has failed to             Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
     fulfil its obligations under Article 12 (1 ) and Article 2 (1 )                     the European Parliament
     of the abovementioned directives and Article 1 89 of the                                 ( Case C-228/95 )
     EC Treaty;
                                                                                                 ( 95/C 268/21 )
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                    2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, represented by Giancarlo
                                                                      Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar ( Italy ), with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux .
                                                                      The applicant claims inter alia that the Court should annul
                                                                      the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of
                                                                      Ombudsman' ( ! ), and all acts connected with it or adopted
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                as a consequence .
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995                             By order of 1 1 July 1995, pursuant to Article 47 of the EC
                                                                      Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court referred that action
in Case C-260/94 : Commission of the European                         to the Court of First Instance .
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           C ) OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 268/20 )
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,
In Case C-260/94: Commission of the European                          by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P.
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic (agents : Panagiotis                                  Tobacco Board )
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a
                                                                                              ( Case C-244/95 )
declaration that, by failing to adopt, and alternatively by
failing to notify to the Commission, within the periods                                            95/C 268/22 )
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
measures needed to comply with Council Directive                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the              European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications               Court of First Instance, Athens, of 24 March 1995 , which
terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of               was received at the Court Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a
their conformity ( OJ No L 128 , p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic        preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A. E. v. Ethnikos
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —            Organismos Kapnou on the validity of Commission
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( x ) inasmuch as it concerns
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini             the agricultural conversion rates to be applied to the
( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O.           premium for tobacco from the 1992 and previous harvests
Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              which was taken out of supervision from 1 July 1993 and
judgment on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of which is           subsequently. Doubt is cast on the validity of Regulation
as follows :                                                           ( EEC ) No 3477/93 on the following grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95           EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 11
A. failure by the EC Commission to submit to the                          3 . In the event that that question should also be answered
     Management Committee for Tobacco Regulation                               in the negative : may a body governed by public law rely
     ( EEC ) No 3477/93 in draft form having retroactive                       directly on Article 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction with
     effect;                                                                   Article 4(5 ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to oppose
                                                                               the application of a national provision even where the
B. infringement of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3813/92                       application of those provisions of the Directive, albeit
     and inadequacy of the statement of reasons in                             having an indirectly favourable effect through the
     Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ;                                deduction of input tax, also has a burdensome effect ?
C. infringement of Article 3(1 ), second paragraph, ( iv ) of             (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70, as replaced by
     Article 1 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1329/90;
D. infringement of Article 39 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty;
E. infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of                  Appeal brought on 24 July 1995 by the European
     Community measures;
                                                                          Parliament against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
F. infringement of the principle of the protection of                     European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
     legitimate expectations ;
                                                                                     Innamorati and the European Parliament
G. infringement of the principle of equal treatment of                                           ( Case C-254/95 P)
     traders in the Community;                                                                       ( 95/C 268/24 )
H. misuse of powers .                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 May 1995
                                                                          by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(') OJ No L 317 , 18 . 12 . 1993 , p . 30 .                               European Communities in Case T-289/94 between Angelo
                                                                          Innamorati and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          24 July 1995 by the European Parliament, represented by
                                                                          Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana, acting as
                                                                          agents, with an address for service at the Secretariat of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               European Parliament, Kirchberg.
Bundesfinanzhofby judgment of 21 March 1995 in the case
 of Finanzamt Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                          ( Case C-247/95 )
                            ( 95/C 268/23 )                               — set aside the contested decision, a judgment of the Court
                                                                               of First Instance delivered on 30 May 1995 in Case
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         T-289/94       Angelo       Innamorati     v.    European
European Communities by a judgment of the XI Senate of                         Parliament ( 1 );
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 17 July                — grant the orders sought at first instance by the European
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt                       Parliament, namely:
Augsburg-Stadt v. Marktgemeinde Welden on the following                        — a ruling that the action is unfounded,
questions :
                                                                               — an order for costs in accordance with the applicable
 1 , does the fourth subparagraph of Article 4 ( 5 ) of                             provisions,
     Directive 77/388/EEC ( A ) allow the Member States to
     treat tax-exempted activities, in respect of which,                  — make an appropriate order as to the costs incurred
                                                                               before the Court of Justice .
     however, it is possible to opt to be taxed, of bodies
     governed by public law as activities which they engage in
     as public authorities, even though they pursue them                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the same legal conditions and in the same way as
     private traders ?                                                     infringement of Community law, in particular disregard or
                                                                           misinterpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice and
                                                                           the Court of First Instance concerning the provision of
 2 . In the event that the first question should be answered in            reasons for administrative decisions : the Selection Board in a
     the negative: may the scope of the right of option to be              competition is not required to specify the marking criteria or
     taxed be restricted pursuant to the second subparagraph
      of Article 13 ( C ) of Directive 77/388/EEC in such a way            parameters which it is entitled to set for the marking of a
                                                                           written test .
     that, where activities coming under the first
      subparagraph of Article 13 ( C ) of that Directive are
      engaged in by bodies governed by public law, they are                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 , p . 15 .
      treated    as   business      activities   only    in  certain
      circumstances ?