title: Case T-662/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission (Common Agricultural Policy — Direct payments — Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice — Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 — Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Misuse of power — Legal certainty — Non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Right to property — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-662/14) (1)

   ((Common Agricultural Policy - Direct payments - Additional criteria for ecological focus areas with short rotation coppice - Article 45(8) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 - Article 46(9)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Misuse of power - Legal certainty - Non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 251/26)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the part of the first sentence of Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1), which states the following: ‘by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case T-37/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/42

         Action brought on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-37/05)
   (2005/C 82/75)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España (WWTE) S.A. of Madrid (Spain), represented by Miguel Odriozola Alén, Marta Marañón Hermoso and Adrian Emch, of the Madrid Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               reduce the fine imposed on WWTE in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision at issue is the same as in case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission
       (1).
   The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).
   In particular, it is stated that the Commission applied more severe dissuasive factors against the applicant than against other Spanish processors, in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine imposed. Futhermore, the applicant's conduct cannot be imputed to its parent companies Trans-Continental Corporation Leaf Tobacco, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Standard Commercial Corporation.
   Likewise, the applicant submits that the guidelines on the calculation of fines and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed, in so far as the Commission failed to take into consideration attenuating circumstances that it is the first time that the raw tobacco has been investigated, that the applicant put an end to the infringements as soon as the Commission took action, and in 1996 and 1997 the agreements were not implemented.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case C-324/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat, Belgium, lodged on 12 July 2007 — Coditel Brabant v 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat, Belgium, lodged on 12 July 2007 — Coditel Brabant v 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-324/07)
   (2007/C 211/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coditel Brabant

      Defendants: 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   Questions referred

               1)

               May a municipality, without calling for competition, join a cooperative society grouping together exclusively other municipalities and associations of municipalities (a so-called pure inter-municipal cooperative) in order to transfer to that cooperative society the operation of its cable television network, in the knowledge that the cooperative society carries out the essential part of its activities for and with its own members and that decisions regarding those activities are taken by the board of directors and the sector boards within the limits of the delegated powers granted to them by the board of directors, those corporate bodies being composed of representatives of the public authorities and the decisions of those corporate bodies being taken in accordance with the vote expressed by the majority of those representatives?

               2)

               Can the control thus exercised over the decisions of the cooperative society, via the corporate bodies, by all the members of the cooperative society — or, in the case of operational sectors or sub-sectors, by some of those members — be regarded as enabling them to exercise over the cooperative society control similar to that exercised over their own departments?

               3)

               For that control to be regarded as similar, must it be exercised individually by each member, or is it sufficient that it be exercised by the majority of the members?


title: Case T-296/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 264/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
Goods or services:             Goods and services in Classes 16           Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.
                               and 41                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of            the mark in respect of ‘printed                                    (Case T-296/03)
Appeal:                        matter’ in Class 16 and ‘arranging
                               and organising of trade fairs, exhi-
                                                                                (2003/C 264/59)
                               bitions, seminars and congresses’
                               in Class 41
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                  —    The mark is distinctive
                                    within the meaning of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                    (EC) No 40/94;                        European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                               —    The mark is not a descriptive
                                    indication within the mean-
                                    ing of Article 7(1)(c) of Regu-       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                          —     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-295/03)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 264/58)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille
                                                                          s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-297/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                         European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto
                                                                          Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C., represented by
                                                                          M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.


title: Case T-404/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing a hand — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law — Review)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — National Lottery Commission v OHIM
   (Case T-404/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing a hand - Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Existence of earlier copyright protected by national law - Burden of proof - Application by OHIM of national law - Review)
   2012/C 319/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: National Lottery Commission (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mediatek Italia Srl (Naples, Italy) and Giuseppe De Gregorio (Naples)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mediatek Italia Srl and Giuseppe De Gregorio and, on the other, the National Lottery Commission

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1028/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the National Lottery Commission in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case F-96/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2007 — Daskalakis v Commission
   (Case F-96/07)
   (2007/C 297/99)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Tribunal has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2005 in Case T-206/02 Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Locus standi — Association — Admissibility)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/34

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 February 2005
   in Case T-206/02 Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Locus standi - Association - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 143/64)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-206/02: Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Boisseau, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Marquardt) supported by Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially G. zur Hausen and G. Boudot, and subsequently J. Enegren and G. Boudot, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially J. Collins, and subsequently R. Caudwell, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/CE of 2 May 2002, implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-81/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/16

         Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-81/07)
   (2007/C 69/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson)

      Defendant: the Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by not developing, approving and implementing waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2000/59/EC into national law expired on 28 December 2000.

      (1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 70, 22.3.2003

text:
5.4.2003         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 83/29
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 83/62)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
         OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
         OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
         OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
         OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
         OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-233/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Generalitat de Catalunya

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Generalitat de Catalunya
   (Case C-233/16)
   (2016/C 260/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Respondent: Generalitat de Catalunya

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax imposed on the use of individual large retail spaces with sales areas covering 2 500 m2 or more due to their potential effect on planning, the environment and urban retailing patterns in the region, but which, as a matter of law, applies irrespective of whether or not such retail establishments are actually situated in a consolidated urban area and in practice usually affects undertakings from other Member States, given that: (i) it does not affect traders who own several retail establishments, each with sales areas of less than 2 500 m2, whatever the total sales area of all of those establishments together; (ii) it exempts collective retail establishments; (iii) it excludes individual retail establishments which are garden centres and those selling vehicles, building materials, machinery and industrial supplies; and (iv) retail establishments given over essentially to the sale of furniture, sanitary ware and doors and windows and those that are do-it-yourself stores are required to pay the tax on only 40 % of the relevant net tax base?

               2.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the following constitute State aid prohibited under that provision: (i) the full exemption from the IGEC of individual retail establishments whose sales areas are less than 2 500 m2, of collective retail establishments and of individual retail establishments which are garden centres and those selling vehicles, building materials, machinery and industrial supplies; and (ii) the partial exemption from the IGEC of individual retail establishments given over essentially to the sale of furniture, sanitary ware and doors and windows and of do-it-yourself stores?

               3.

               If those full and partial exemptions from the IGEC constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, what would the scope ratione temporis of such a finding be, in the light of the letter dated 2 October 2013 from the Director for State Aid, Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) to the Permanent Representation of Spain to the European Union in connection with case CP 11/01, concerning alleged aid granted by the Autonomous Community of Catalonia under the law passed by the Catalan Parliament?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Joined Cases C-171/94 and C-172/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Brussels): Albert Merckx and Patrick Neuhuys v. Ford Motor Company Belgium SA (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - Concept of a transfer - Transfer of a dealership)

text:
 No C 180/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
 meaning that it authorizes the Member States to derogate             2 . Article 3 (1 ) of Directive 77/1 87/EEC does not preclude
 from the general prohibition on hunting protected species                 an employee employed by the transferor at the date of
 laid down by Articles 5 and 7 of the Directive only by                    the transfer of an undertaking from objecting to the
 measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors                  transfer to the transferee of the contract of employment
 mentioned in Article 9 ( 1 ) and (2).                                     or the emplyoment relationship. In such a case, it is for
                                                                           the Member States to determine what the fate of the
                                                                           contract of employment or employment relationship
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                           with the transferor should be. However, where the
                                                                           contract ofemployment or the employment relationship
                                                                           is terminated on account of a change in the level of
                                                                           remuneration awarded to the employee, Article 4 (2) of
                                                                           the Directive requires the Member States to provide that
                                                                           the employer is to be regarded as having been
                                                                           responsible for the termination.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             (•) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                        of 7 March 1996
in Joined Cases C-171/94 and C-172/94 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Brussels ):
Albert Merckx and Patrick Neuhuys v. Ford Motor
                    Company Belgium SA (')
 (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
 of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses —                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Concept of a transfer — Transfer of a dealership)                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                           ( 96/C 180/03 )                                                   of 7 March 1996
                                                                      in Case C-192/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 (Language of the case: French)                       the Juzgado de Primera Instancia N° 10 de Sevilla ): El Corte
                                                                                Inglés SA v. Cristina Blázquez Rivero ( ] )
                                                                      (Direct effect of unimplemented Directive — Council
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Directive 87/102/EEC concerning consumer credit)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/04 )
In Joined Cases C-171 /94 and C-172/94 : references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour du                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Brussels, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Albert Merckx ( C-171 /94 ), Patrick Neuhuys ( C-172/94 )                      published in the European Court Reports)
and Ford Motor Company Belgium SA — on the
interpretation of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the            In Case C- 1 92/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees'             of the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or      N° 10 ( Court of First Instance No 10 ), Seville ( Spain ), for a
parts of businesses ( OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 ) — the Court        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of          court between El Corte Inglés SA and Cristina Blâzquez
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A.                     Rivero — on the interpretation of Article 129a of the EC
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;             Treaty and Article 11 of Council Directive 87/ 102/EEC of
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                  22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :                       States concerning consumer credit ( OJ No L 42 , 1987, p . 48 )
                                                                     — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
1 . Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of               Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O.
      7 4 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of          Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     the Member States relating to the safeguarding of               judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :
     employees ' rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be
     interpreted as applying where an undertaking holding a          In the absence of measures implementing Council Directive
     motor vehicle dealership for a particular territory             87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation
     discontinues its activities and the dealership is then          of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
     transferred to another undertaking which takes on part          Member States concerning consumer credit within the
     of the staff and is recommended to customers, without           prescribed period, a consumer may not, even in view of
     any transfer of assets.                                         Article 129a of the EC Treaty, base a right of action on the


title: Case C-264/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Energy — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2003/54/EC — Investment contract — Bilateral agreement on the protection of investments concluded prior to accession to the European Union — Article 307 EC)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-264/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2003/54/EC - Investment contract - Bilateral agreement on the protection of investments concluded prior to accession to the European Union - Article 307 EC)
   2011/C 319/02
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, F. Hoffmeister and J. Javorský, Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9(e) and 20(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) — Priority access of an operator to part of the cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Infringement of the obligation to ensure non-discriminatory access for transport and distribution networks

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 135/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
      use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual                  the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/               whether or not the results of analyses of samples of a
      391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of                        manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
      5 December 1995;                                                             manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
                                                                                foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
                                                                                Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
                                                                                court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
                                                                                evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
                                                                                than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
                                                                                equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
                                                                                or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                                Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
                                                                                national court must consider whether such evidence must be
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
                                                                                pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
                                                                                hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
                                                                                Fundamental Freedoms.
                            of 10 April 2003
in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
     the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)
(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
         infringement of the right to a second opinion)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 135/08)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                     (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  of 10 April 2003
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of the second                      Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC                                             scribed period)
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                                (2003/C 135/09)
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                                         (Language of the case: French)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive                               in the European Court Reports)
      89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
      foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
      may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
      against the competent authorities of a Member State where              In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
      those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the             (Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
      standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the           and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from           adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      retail outlets.                                                        necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
2.    It is for the national court before which an action such as that       the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
      at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in        L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/7
obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),                    — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                         mans, President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                      (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April                  Registrar, made an order on 6 February 2003, the operative
2003, in which it:                                                              part of which is as follows:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,         1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament               2.    Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                    (1 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-87/03)
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2003/C 135/11)
                            (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 6 February 2003                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v                                   by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                             service in Luxembourg.
(Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
countries from which the import of fishery products is
authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the                           —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 (1) of
importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual                               20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing oppor-
liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly                                 tunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
                inadmissible and partly unfounded)                                    and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community
                                                                                waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch
                                                                                limitations are required, in so far as it allocates certain
                             (2003/C 135/10)                                          quotas to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of
                                                                                the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: on
In Case 492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established in                             completion of the transitional period on 31 December
Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer —                                2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                         that of fishermen of the remaining Member States and
the European Communities, Fifth Chamber, of 23 October                                they should enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
2001 in Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen v Commission                                 However, by the contested regulation, Spanish fishermen
[2001] ECR II-3143, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                          are treated differently, since they are not allowed to fish
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                            in the waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea for
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejhar)                            virtually all the species subject to quotas.


title: Case C-107/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2007 against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Friedrich Weber v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/26

         Appeal brought on 13 February 2007 against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Friedrich Weber v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-107/07 P)
   (2007/C 95/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Friedrich Weber (represented by: W. Declair, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 (1);

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 27 May 2005.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant justifies his appeal against the above judgment as follows.
   The Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the application as inadmissible inasmuch as by that application the respondent should be required by the Court to grant access to certain documents. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the Court does not have such authority to give instructions. In addition, it was observed in the contested decision that the present appellant's amended application could not be construed as meaning that that application implicitly sought annulment of the present respondent's contested decision. It could not be deduced from this that: the appellant, by his amended application, sought not only implicitly, but also explicitly, annulment of the respondent's contested decision. The appellant's amended application is admissible inasmuch as it seeks annulment of the Commission's decision. The finding that the application was inadmissible in its entirety is thus unlawful.
   The Court of First Instance observes in its contested judgment that the application contained ‘accusations against German public-law broadcasting bodies and other state bodies. ’The description as such in the observations discredits the appellant's statement of facts in an unacceptable way. The derogatory description of the application as ‘accusations ’shows that the Court failed to examine the extraordinary weight of the allegations and the related infringement of Community law as relevant factors in relation to justifying the application. The Court of First Instance thus disregarded the right to a fair hearing. The way in which the restrained arguments of the appellant were assessed even gives grounds for suspecting bias and for doubts as to a fair hearing.
   The impugned judgment contradicts the principles of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on establishing the European Community. It disregarded the declared will of the Community, to develop and strengthen democracy and the rule of law as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms. The judgment of the Court fails to recognise the significance of the principle of openness in the framework of the Community's belief in and declared will for democracy. The Court failed to examine the question as to whether the defendant's decision was compatible with the goals of the Community. The impugned judgment thus infringes applicable Community law.
   It is not the case that the part of the claim put forward that contained access to the contested Commission document was fully settled. While the defendant confirmed to the Court of First Instance the authenticity of the Commission's letter published in a magazine, the appellant clearly explained, however, that the main issue was not settled by the respondent's confirmation. In support of his application, the appellant argued that the magazine in question is not an organ for the publication of the respondent's public notices.
   For all these reasons, the impugned judgment of the Court of First Instance must be set aside.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 331, p. 42.


title: Case C-564/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 1(2)(a) and (d) — Services — Study and technical and scientific consultancy for the purposes of drawing up the measures forming a municipal town and country planning programme — Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university — Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/42

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia and Others v Comune di Pavia
   (Case C-564/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 1(2)(a) and (d) - Services - Study and technical and scientific consultancy for the purposes of drawing up the measures forming a municipal town and country planning programme - Contract concluded between two public entities, one of which is a university - Public entity capable of being classified as an economic operator)
   2013/C 225/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Consulta Regionale Ordine Ingegneri della Lombardia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Brescia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Como, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Cremona, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lecco, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Lodi, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Milano, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pavia, Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Varese

      Respondent: Comune di Pavia

      In the presence of: Università degli Studi di Pavia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d), Article 2 and Article 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), and of Categories 8 and 12 of Annex II thereto — Award of a public procurement contract outwith the procurement procedures provided for under that directive — Contract entered into by two public administrative authorities, under which the supplier of services is a university and the consideration is in essence non-remunerative

      Operative part of the order

   European Union public procurement law precludes national legislation under which public entities may, without issuing an invitation to tender, enter into a contract establishing mutual cooperation, where — this being for the referring court to determine — the purpose of such a contract is not to ensure the performance of a public service task incumbent upon all those entities, or where that contract is not governed solely by considerations and requirements relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest, or where that contract is of such a nature as to place a private provider of services in a position of advantage vis-à-vis its competitors.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012


title: Case T-294/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Ruhrort v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/59

         Action brought on 5 June 2015 — ArcelorMittal Ruhrort v Commission
   (Case T-294/15)
   (2015/C 302/74)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ArcelorMittal Ruhrort GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicant submits that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge is not aid, since State resources were neither granted nor renounced. The reduction of the EEG-surcharge is also not made selectively. In addition, it does not distort competition and also does not affect trade in the internal market.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU
               Should — contrary to what the applicant submits — aid exist, the applicant takes the view that the defendant was in any event not entitled to require recovery pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU. This is because the reduction of the EEG-surcharge does not constitute new aid, since the previous rules in respect of it, which were identical in content in fundamental aspects, had already been approved by the defendant in 2002.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU
               The applicant also submits that the decision infringes Article 107(3) TFEU and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. In this respect, the defendant should not have assessed the facts examined by it on the basis of its Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, which were published only on 28 June 2014. Instead, it should have applied the guidelines published in 2008. Taking the 2008 standard as a basis, the defendant would not have been entitled to reach a conclusion other than that the alleged aid was compatible with the internal market.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty
               Lastly, the applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision in a procedure concerning new aid, the defendant infringed the principle of legal certainty and Article 108(1) TFEU. As the defendant had approved the rules preceding the EEG 2012, it should have taken a decision in a procedure concerning existing aid and not in a procedure concerning new aid.


title: Case T-259/14: Action brought on 24 April 2014  — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/20

         Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-259/14)
   2014/C 223/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: L. Delvaux, Agent, and P.-E. Partsch, A. Steichen, D. Waelbroeck, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 24 March 2014 requiring Luxembourg to provide information relating to the taxation scheme for revenue from intellectual property;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C (2014) 1987 final by which the Commission directed the applicant, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) to provide information relating to the taxation scheme for revenue from intellectual property.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in the context of Case T-258/14 Luxembourg v Commission.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 15 January 2002 in Case C-43/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret): Andersen og Jensen ApS v Skatteministeriet (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares — Transfer of assets or of a branch of activity — Meaning)

text:
C 84/20                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
the national legislation, even where a directive on the mutual              1.    Declares that, by not drawing up waste management plans
recognition of diplomas has been adopted for the profession concerned,            covering the whole of its territory and complying with all the
but where application of that directive does not result in automatic              provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
recognition of the applicant’s qualification or qualifications.                   on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                                18 March 1991, of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and of Directive
                                                                                94/62/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, and/or
                                                                                by not informing the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
                                                                                by Directive 91/156, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and,
                                                                                leaving aside Gibraltar, under Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
                                                                            2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Ireland to pay the costs.
                         (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                          24 January 2002
in Case C-35/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                              Ireland (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC,
  91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 84/31)                                                             15 January 2002
                    (Language of the case: English)                         in Case C-43/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Vestre Landsret): Andersen og Jensen ApS v
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Com-
                                                                            mon system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
                                                                            transfers of assets and exchanges of shares — Transfer of
In Case C-35/00, Commission of the European Communities                               assets or of a branch of activity — Meaning)
(agents: R. B. Wainwright and L. Ström) v United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent: R. Magrill, assisted
                                                                                (2002/C 84/32)
by D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by not
drawing up waste management plans complying with all the
provisions concerning waste of Council Directive 75/442/EEC                                     (Language of the case: Danish)
of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended
by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32), of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and of                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), and/or by not informing the Commission
thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                   In Case C-43/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of             by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Article 6                 the proceedings pending before that court between Andersen
of Directive 91/689 and Article 14 of Directive 94/62, the                  og Jensen ApS and Skatteministeriet on the interpretation of
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President                 Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                   1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to
Judges, Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has              mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it:                           concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 84/21
L 225, p. 1),the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La                  Temco Service Industries SA and Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune
Pergola, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate                  Belfarh, Abdesselam Afia-Aroussi, Khalil Lakhdar, intervener:
General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy                     General Maintenance Contractors SPRL (GMC), Buyle-Medros-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 2002, in which                Vaes Associates SA (BMV), formerly Weisspunkt SA, on the
it has ruled:                                                               interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of Council Directive
                                                                            77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of
1.    Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July       the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
      1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers,          employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
      divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning     businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26), the
      companies of different Member States must be interpreted as           Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
      meaning that there is no transfer of assets within the meaning        the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
      of that directive where the terms of a transaction are such that      R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate
      the proceeds of a significant loan contracted by the transferring     General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head
      company remain with that company and the obligations arising          of Division, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
      from the loan are transferred to the company receiving the            which it has ruled:
      transfer. It is immaterial in this regard that the transferring
      company retains a small number of shares in a third company.
2.    It is for the national court to determine whether a transfer of
      assets involves an independent business within the meaning of
      Article 2(i) of Directive 90/434, that is to say, an entity           1.    Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
      capable of functioning by its own means, where the future cash-             1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      flow requirements of the company receiving the transfer must be             relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
      satisfied by a credit facility from a financial institution which           transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must
      insists, in particular, that the shareholders of the company                be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a contractor
      receiving the transfer provide security in the form of shares               which has entrusted the contract for cleaning its premises to a
      representing the capital of that company.                                   first undertaking, which has that contract performed by a
                                                                                subcontractor, terminates that contract and enters into a new
                                                                                contract for the performance of the same work with a second
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                        undertaking, where the transaction does not involve any transfer
                                                                                of tangible or intangible assets between the first undertaking or
                                                                                the subcontractor and the second undertaking, but the second
                                                                                undertaking has taken on, under a collective labour agreement,
                                                                                part of the staff of the subcontractor, provided that the staff
                                                                                thus taken on are an essential part, in terms of their number
                                                                                and their skills, of the staff assigned by the subcontractor to the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           performance of the subcontract.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                           24 January 2002
                                                                            2.    Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187 must be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that it does not preclude the contract or employment
in Case C-51/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               relationship of a worker employed by the transferor on the date
from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Temco Service                             of the transfer of the undertaking within the meaning of
Industries SA v Samir Imzilyen, Mimoune Belfarh, Abdes-                           Article 1(1) of that directive from continuing with the transferor
              selam Afia-Aroussi, Khalil Lakhdar (1)                              where that worker objects to the transfer of his employment
                                                                                contract or employment relationship to the transferee.
(Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights
            in the event of transfers of undertakings)
                            (2002/C 84/33)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-51/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 March 1996 in Case C-392/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court): The Queen v. H. M. Treasury, ex parte: British Telecommunications plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of Directive 90/531/EEC - Telecommunications - Transposition into national law - Obligation to pay compensation in the event of incorrect implementation)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/7
2 . In areas not covered by Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85,                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Member States remain competent to adopt rules on                                        of 26 March 1996
     driving periods.
                                                                       in Case C-3 92/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division,
0 ) OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      Divisional Court ): The Queen v. H. M. Treasury, ex parte:
                                                                                British Telecommunications plc (')
                                                                       (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of
                                                                       Directive      90/531/EEC     —     Telecommunications       —
                                                                        Transposition into national law — Obligation to pay
                                                                         compensation in the event of incorrect implementation)
                                                                                96/C 180/ 14 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                       of 21 March 1996
                                                                                (Language of the case: Englisb)
in Case C-39/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle ): Criminal proceedings
                   against Pierre Goupil f 1 )
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
                        for refuse vehicles)                           In Case C-3 92/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                           ( 96/C 180/ 13 )                            of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                       Bench Division, Divisional Court, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                         the Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte British
                                                                       Telecommunications pic, on the interpretation of
                                                                       Article 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of
          published in the European Court Reports)                     entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
                                                                       telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 297, 1990 , p . 1 ) —
                                                                       the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
In Case C-39/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of           C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet,
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Police ( Local Criminal              Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
Court ), La Rochelle, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and
proceedings pending before that court against Pierre Goupil            J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; L.
on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation          Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                           judgment on 26 March 1996 , in which it rules :
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road
transport ( OJ No L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First
Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the
Chamber ), P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon, Judges; P.
Léger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   1 . It is not open to a Member State, when transposing into
21 March 1996 in which it rules :                                           national law Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
                                                                            1 7 September 1 990 on the procurement procedures of
                                                                            entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse                    telecommunications      sectors,    to determine     which
collection and disposal ' in Article 4 (6) of Council                       telecommunications services are to be excluded from its
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on the                       scope in implementation of Article 8 (1 ), since that
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road                power is vested in the contracting entities themselves.
transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles used for
the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to
more specific rules and for the transportation of such waste
over short distances, within the context of a general service
in the public interest provided directly by the public                  2 . The criterion laid down by Article 8 (1 ) of Directive
authorities or by private undertakings under their                          90/531 , namely that 'other entities are free to offer the
control.                                                                    same services in the same geographical area and under
                                                                            substantially the same conditions ', is to be verified as a
                                                                            matter of law and of fact, having regard in particular to
 (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                             all the characteristics of the services concerned, the
                                                                            existence of alternative services, price factors, the
                                                                            dominance or otherwise of the contracting entity's
                                                                            position on the market and any legal constraints.
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
 3 . Community law does not require a Member State which,             and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) must
     in transposing Directive 90/531 /EEC into national law,          be interpreted as meaning that social security schemes such
     has itself determined which services of a contracting            as those in issue in the main proceedings are excluded from
     entity are to be excluded from its scope in                      the scope of the Directive.
     implementation of Article 8, to compensate that entity
     for any loss suffered by it as a result of the error
     committed by the State.                                          f 1 ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
 (') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 March 1996
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      in Case C-271/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( l )
                       of 26 March 1996
                                                                      (Council Decision 94/445/EC — Edicom — Telematic
 in Case C-238/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                networks — Legal basis)
 the   Tribunal    des   affaires   de   sécurité   sociale for
                                                                                { 96/ C 180/16 )
 Tarn-et-Garonne ): José Garcia and Others v. Mutuelle de
        prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others ( 1 )
 (Non-life insurance — Council Directive 92/49/EEC —                                   (Language of the case: French)
                              Scope)
                         ( 96/C 180/15 )
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case C-271/94 , European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and José Luis Rufas
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Quintana ), supported by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Georgios Kremlis ) v. Council of the
                                                                     European Union ( Agents: Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu
In Case C-238/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Lopes Sabino ) — application for the annulment of Council
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité          Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1994 on interadministration
sociale ( Social Security Tribunal ) for Tarn-et-Garonne for a       telematic networks for statistics relating to the trading of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            goods between Member States ( Edicom ) ( OJ No L 183 ,
court between José Garcia and Others v . Mutuelle de                  1994 , p . 42 ) — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez
prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others — on the                   Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
interpretation of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Council Directive               of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws,               Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct         H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Judges,
insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives          Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( third non-life insurance                 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 March
Directive ) ( OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 ) — the Court,              1996 in which it :
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O.
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida            1 . Annuls Council Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1 994 on
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,                 interadministration telematic networks for statistics
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,                               relating to the trading ofgoods between Member States
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            (Edicom).
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                            2 . Maintains the effects of the Commission decisions
                                                                            already adopted pursuant to the annulled decision until
                                                                            such time as a decision adopted on the appropriate legal
Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June                     basis enters into force.
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC               3 . Orders the Council to pay the costs.


C 55/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-359/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-486/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/34)                                                         (2003/C 55/37)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-359/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-486/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Autogolf Srl v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Flos SpA and Others v
delle Finanze.                                                         Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-487/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/35)                                                         (2003/C 55/38)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-360/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-487/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Union Factor SpA and              ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Petra SpA v Ministero delle
Others v Ministero delle Finanze.                                      Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-485/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-488/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/36)                                                         (2003/C 55/39)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-485/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-488/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Gottinghen SpA and Others         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Supercar Srl v Ministero
v Ministero delle Finanze.                                             delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.


title: Case C-409/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2012 — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2012 — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH
   (Case C-409/12)
   2012/C 399/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH

      Defendant: Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Has a trade mark become ‘the common name. for a product or service’ within the meaning of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) where

                           (a)

                           although traders know that the mark constitutes an indication of origin they do not generally disclose this to end consumers, and

                           (b)

                           (inter alia) on those grounds, end consumers no longer understand the trade mark as an indication of origin but as the common name for goods or services, in respect of which the trade mark is registered?

               2.

               Can the conduct of a proprietor be regarded as ‘inactivity’ for the purposes of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC simply if the proprietor of the trade mark remains inactive notwithstanding the fact that traders do not inform customers that the name is a registered trade mark?

               3.

               If, as a consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, a trade mark has become a common name for end consumers, but not in the trade, is that trade mark liable to be revoked if, and only if, end consumers have to use this name because there are no equivalent alternatives?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version), (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Drug precursors — Monitoring of trade between the Member States — Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 — Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries — Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 — Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine — Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ — Composition — Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted — Directive 2001/83/EC — Definition of ‘medicinal product’)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/11

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)
      (Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14) (1)

      ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Composition - Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted - Directive 2001/83/EC - Definition of ‘medicinal product’))
      (2015/C 107/13)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Bundesgerichtshof

         Parties in the main proceedings

      Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors respectively must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product as defined in Article 1(2) of 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, cannot be categorised as a ‘scheduled substance’ as such, even if it contains a substance referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 and in the annex to Regulation No 111/2005 and can easily be used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means.

         (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

         OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/9

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-31/15)
   (2016/C 216/06)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 8 June 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 April 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, as referred to at point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-400/15: Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v OHIM — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/35

         Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v OHIM — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)
   (Case T-400/15)
   (2015/C 320/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: University College London (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CITRUS SATURDAY’ — Application for registration No 11 789 195

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 2109/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               consider the appeal admissible;

               —

               declare null and void the contested decision;

               —

               remit the case to the Opposition Division of the Office for further prosecution.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of the Community trade mark regulations;

               —

               Infringement of principles of the EC law.