title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 15 January 2002 in Case C-179/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gerald Weidacher (as administrator of the insolvent company Thakis Vertriebs- und Handels GmbH) v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft (Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden — Transitional measures — Surplus stocks — Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 — Competence — Holder of the goods — Import charge applicable — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/25
      —     Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 laying            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet, Judges,
            down certain measures for implementing Council Directive       Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Princi-
            95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements           pal Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002,
            for approving and registering certain establishments and       in which it:
            intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector, and
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998
            amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/EEC,                    2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
            91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and
            repealing Directive 92/87/EEC,
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those Directives.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                15 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-179/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gerald Weidacher (as
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    administrator of the insolvent company Thakis Vertriebs-
                                                                           und Handels GmbH) v Bundesminister für Land- und
                                                                                Forstwirtschaft (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and
                          24 January 2002                                  Sweden — Transitional measures — Surplus stocks —
                                                                           Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 —
                                                                           Competence — Holder of the goods — Import charge
in Case C-170/00: Republic of Finland v Commission of                      applicable — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality —
                  the European Communities (1)                                                      Equal treatment)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for                                                      (2002/C 84/40)
1996 and 1997 — Special premiums for bulls — Procedure
                to be followed by the Commission)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                            (2002/C 84/39)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                           In Case C-179/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                           Gerald Weidacher (as administrator of the insolvent company
                                                                           Thakis Vertriebs- und Handels GmbH) and Bundesminister für
                                                                           Land- und Forstwirtschaft on the interpretation of
In Case C-170/00, Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and                Article 149(1) of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
E. Bygglin) v Commission of the European Communities                       Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
(Agents: M. Niejahr and I. Koskinen): Application for partial              and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March                    Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1,
2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-                   p. 1) and on the validity and interpretation of Commission
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee                     Regulation (EC) No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                transitional measures to be adopted on account of the
Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37), in so far as it excludes               accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in respect of trade in
from Community financing the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76                       agricultural products (OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42),the Court (First
incurred in the applicant Member State on advance payment                  Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
of special premiums for bulls, for the 1996 and 1997                       L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
marketing years, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   General: J. Mischo, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,               on 15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The Commission of the European Communities was competent,              the application brought before that court by Lutz GmbH and
      under Article 149(1) of the Act concerning the conditions of           others on the validity of Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive
      accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland          68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
      and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties          which, for the protection of the interests of members and
      on which the European Union is founded, to adopt the measures          others, are required by Member States of companies within the
      provided for in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC)                meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,
      No 3108/94 of 19 December 1994 on transitional measures                with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
      to be adopted on account of the accession of Austria, Finland          the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
      and Sweden in respect of trade in agricultural products.               and Article 47 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                             25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the
2.    Examination of the second question has disclosed no factor of          annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222,
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 of Regulation       p. 11),the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of proportionality            President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rappor-
      and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.        teur), Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar:
                                                                             H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
3.    The term ‘holder’ of surplus stock, within the meaning of              15 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
      Article 4 of Regulation No 3108/94, refers to a person who
      has authority to place the stored products on the market and
      thereby realise a profit.                                              The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
                                                                             to answer the questions submitted by the Landesgericht Wels in its
4.    Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3108/94 must be interpreted as           decision of 9 May 2000.
      meaning that, in the case of imports of Tunisian olive oil, the
      ‘import charge’ applicable in the Community of Twelve on
      31 December 1994 is the one provided for in Annex I to                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94 of 29 December
      1994 fixing the minimum levies on the importation of olive oil
      and levies on the importation of other olive oil sector products.
5.    Examination of the fifth question has disclosed no factor of
      such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4(3) of Regulation
      No 3108/94 in the light of the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                22 January 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-218/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunale di Vicenza): Cisal di Battistello Venanzio &
                           (First Chamber)                                   C. Sas v Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli
                                                                                infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)(1)
                          15 January 2002
                                                                             (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
in Case C-182/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Compulsory affiliation to a body
    the Landesgericht Wels): Lutz GmbH and Others (1)                        providing insurance against accidents at work — Whether
                                                                                such a body is to be treated as an undertaking)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual
accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of
        companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                                                  (2002/C 84/42)
                            (2002/C 84/41)                                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-218/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-182/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                EC by the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
by the Landesgericht Wels (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in              in the proceedings pending before that court between Cisal di


title: Case C-504/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v Betriebskrankenkasse RWE

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v Betriebskrankenkasse RWE
   (Case C-504/13)
   2013/C 352/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH

      Respondent on a point of law: Betriebskrankenkasse RWE

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a product in the form of a medical device which is implanted in the human body (in this case, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator — ICD) is already defective if a malfunction has occurred in a significant number of devices in the same series, but a defect has not been detected in the device which has been implanted in the specific case in point?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another ICD constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC?

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.


title: Case T-243/10: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Rungis express AG v OHIM — Žito (MARESTO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/21

         Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Rungis express AG v OHIM — Žito (MARESTO)
   (Case T-243/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 336/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rungis express AG (Meckenheim, Germany) (represented: initially by U. Feldmann and subsequently by O. Dimopoulou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, R. Pethke and D. Botis, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Praviček, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 691/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. and Rungis express AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, to bear half of the defendant’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Action brought on 29 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-388/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 397/23
    (a) that, in order for a clause vesting jurisdiction in a                  possibly depend to some extent on the contents
         given court, as provided for in that article, to be                   of the bill of lading and/or the particular
         valid as between the parties, it is necessary in each                 circumstances of the case, such as the particular
         case for that clause to be formulated in such a                       state of knowledge of the third party concerned
         way that its wording alone makes it quite clear to                    or the fact that the latter has a long-standing
         (inter alia) persons other than the parties Ð and                     business relationship with the carrier and, if so,
         in particular to the court concerned Ð which                          can the third party be deemed to be aware of the
         court is to have jurisdiction to settle disputes                      particular circumstances of the case if the contents
         arising from the legal relationship in the context                    of the bill of lading do not make it sufficiently
         of which that clause is stipulated, or at least that                  clear to him that the clause in question is validly
         the identity of that court can be easily ascertained;                 binding on him?
         or
                                                                     4. If the answer to Question 3(a) is as set out in the
    (b) that Ð whether by virtue of a rule which has at                   second alternative postulated therein, which national
         all material times been aplicable or in                          law governs the decision as to whether the third party,
         consequence of or in connection with the                         upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the
         progressive relaxation of the rules arising from the             shipper's rights and obligations, and what is the
         successive amendments made to Article 17 of the                  position if the national law in question has not
         Brussels Convention, together with the case-law of               hitherto provided, either in its legislation or in its case-
         the Court of Justice concerning the circumstances                law, an answer to the question whether the third
         in which such a clause is to be regarded as having               party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeds to
         been validly concluded Ð in order for such a                     the shipper's rights and obligations?
         clause to be valid, it is enough that the parties
         themselves clearly know, on the basis (inter alia)
         of the (further) circumstances of the case, which
         court is to have jurisdiction to settle such
         disputes?
                                                                     Action brought on 29 October 1998 by the Commission
2. Does Article 17 of the Brussels Convention also                   of the European Communities against the Hellenic
    govern the validity, as against a third party holding a                                     Republic
    bill of lading, of a clause which specifies as the forum                                 (Case C-388/98)
    having jurisdiction to settle disputes under this Bill of
    Lading' the courts of the place where the carrier has                                     (98/C 397/41)
    his principal place of business' and which is laid
    down in a bill of lading also containing an identity of
    carrier' clause, that bill of lading being issued for the        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
    purposes of the carriage of goods, where (a) the                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    shipper and one of the possible carriers are not                 on 29 Octrober 1998 by the Commission of the European
    established in a Contracting State and (b) the second            Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
    possible carrier is indeed established in a Contracting          its Legal Service, with an address for service in
    State but it is not certain whether his principal place         Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
    of business' is situated in that State or in a State which       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    is not a party to the Convention?
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
    (a) Does the fact that the jurisdiction clause                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
         contained in the bill of lading must be regarded as              Council Directive 94/67/EC (1) of 16 December 1994
         valid as between the carrier and the shipper mean                on the incineration of hazardous waste, or by not
         that it is also binding on any third party holding               communicating those measures to the Commission, the
         the bill of lading, or is that the position only as              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
         regards a third party who, upon acquiring the bill               under that directive;
         of lading, succeeds by virtue of the applicable
         national law to the shipper's rights and
         obligations?                                                Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    (b) Assuming that the jurisdiction clause contained in           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         the bill of lading must be regarded as valid as
         between the carrier and the shipper, does the
         answer to the question whether it is also binding           The Member States are required by the binding character
         on a third party holding the bill of lading also            of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.12.98
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                           Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the
directives into national law before the expiry of the period                          decision adopted by the Commission on
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those                                   3 February 1997 expressly rejecting the
measures immediately to the Commission. That period                                   appellant's complaint;
expired on 31 December 1996 without the Hellenic
Republic having communicated to the Commission
                                                                            (c) order the defendant to pay all the costs of both
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national
                                                                                sets of proceedings.
law.
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Ð Erroneous legal characterisation of the appellant's
                                                                            request, giving rise to incorrect legal consequences:
                                                                            the appellant's request, although based on
                                                                            Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, was
                                                                            intended to secure an assessment of his qualifications
Appeal brought on 2 November 1998 by Hans Gevaert
                                                                            with a view to a possible revision of his current
against the order made on 19 August 1998 by the First
                                                                            classification, not of his initial classification, the latter
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            being neither directly nor indirectly in issue.
Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans Gevaert
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-389/98 P)                               Ð (In the alternative) erroneous legal characterisation of
                                                                            the decision of 7 February 1996 (Administrative
                         (98/C 397/42)                                      Notices of 27.3.1996) by which the Commission
                                                                            amended its decision concerning the criteria
                                                                            applicable to appointment in grade and classification
An appeal against the order made on 19 August 1998 by                       in step upon recruitment; breach of the principle of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     equality of treatment and infringement of Article 5(3)
European Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans                          of the Staff Regulations of officials: to reserve the
Gevaert and the Commission of the European                                  benefit of the Commission's decision of 7 February
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      1996 solely to officials appointed after it entered into
the European Communities on 2 November 1998 by Hans                         force, notwithstanding that those officials would in
Gevaert, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels                    the future be working in the same institution
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       alongside other officials classified in accordance with
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                             earlier (less favourable) criteria, would be wholly
Cessange.                                                                   contrary to the principle of euqality of treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Ð Contradictory statements in the grounds of the
                                                                            judgment.
1.   declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                   (1) Order of 19.8.1998 in Case T-160/97 (OJ C 327, 24.10.1998,
                                                                           p. 24).
2.   consequently:
     (a) set aside the order made (1);
     (b) itself determine the proceedings and, allowing the            Action brought on 4 November 1998 by the Commission
          appellant's initial application:                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
          Ð rule that the appellant's request for                                              (Case C-391/98)
              consideration to be given to the possible
              application of Article 31(2) of the Staff                                         (98/C 397/43)
              Regulations,      with    a      view     to    his
              reclassification in grade with effect from
              5 October 1995, is admissible;                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          Ð consequently,        annul     the    Commission's         on 4 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
              decision of 26 August 1996 rejecting the                 Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
              appellant's request for an examination of the            its Legal Service, with an address for service in
              possible application of Article 31(2) of the             Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
              Staff Regulations;                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-409/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg

text:
C 20/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
— misuse of powers inasmuch as the suspension order                         of Directive 96/54/EC expired on 31 March 1998 and the
     was based on grounds other than those laid down in                     Kingdom of Belgium had not adopted the necessary measures
     Article 88(3) EC;                                                      to comply with the amendments to Annexes I and III to
                                                                            Directive 67/548/EEC.
— declaration that the aid existed and was unlawful vitiated
     by uncertainty and lacks investigation and a statement of
     reasons. No reference to facts.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 248 of 30.9.1996, p. 1.
(1) SG(99)D6463 on the opening of the formal inquiry into aid
    granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings belonging to the
    Tirrenia di Navigazione, in so far as it suspends such aid which it
    declares unlawful.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by
                                                                            order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of:
                                                                            1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against
                                                                            Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael
                                                                                Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                                               (Case C-409/99)
                           (Case C-405/99)                                                            (2000/C 20/20)
                            (2000/C 20/19)                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                            hof (Administrative Court), Austria of 22 September 1999
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                        received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1999, for a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand
on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European                        WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,                 Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirek-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               tion für Vorarlberg on the following question:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            1. Is subparagraph 2 of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Direc-
                                                                                tive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                                to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from
— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                    excluding the right to deduct input tax in respect of certain
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      vehicles after the entry into force of the directive, if before
     Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting                      its entry into force input tax was deductible in respect of
     to technical progress for the twenty-second time Council                    those vehicles by virtue of the administrative authorities’
     Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,                      actual practice?
     regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-              2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the first sentence of
     stances, (1) in particular Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 2(1)            Article 17(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                    17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     obligations under that directive;                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted
                                                                                as meaning that a Member State may, without prior
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                 consultation under Article 29 of the directive, add to the
                                                                                exclusions from the right to deduct input tax in the manner
                                                                                described in Question 1 in order to consolidate the budget?
Pleas in law and main arguments
It follows from the binding nature of directives, laid down in              (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC, that Member States to which directives are
addressed are obliged to achieve the results provided for within
the periods prescribed. The period prescribed by Article 2(1)


               28.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 163/13

         Action brought on 20 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-8/14)
   (2014/C 163/12)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewisand Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No 54/2010 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               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 on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Joined Cases T-400/04, T-402/04 to T-404/04: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission (Health policy — Placing on the market of biocidal products — Identification of active substances on the market — Decision refusing amendment of certain provisions of the legislation — Actions for failure to act — Obligation to act — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-400/04, T-402/04 to T-404/04) (1)

   (Health policy - Placing on the market of biocidal products - Identification of active substances on the market - Decision refusing amendment of certain provisions of the legislation - Actions for failure to act - Obligation to act - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, Connecticut, United States); Arch Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom) (Case T-400/04); Rhodia UK Ltd, formerly Rhodia Consumer Specialities Ltd (Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (Case T-402/04); Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) (Case T-403/04); Troy Chemical Co. BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (Case T-404/04); (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and D. Recchia, and subsequently by P. Oliver and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action, firstly, seeking a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act in that it unlawfully refrained from amending certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1) and, in the alternative, action for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004 refusing to grant the applicants’ requests and, secondly, action for compensation for the loss which the applicants suffered as a result of the Commission’s failure to act and, in the alternative, action for compensation for the loss caused by the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2004.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Case C-126/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas lodged on 17 March 2014  — Sveda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas lodged on 17 March 2014 — Sveda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-126/14)
   2014/C 175/29
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Sveda UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Interested third party: Klaipėdos apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

      Question referred

   May Article 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as granting a taxable person the right to deduct the input VAT paid in producing or acquiring capital goods intended for business purposes, such as those in the present case, which (i) are directly intended for use by members of the public free of charge, but (ii) may be recognised as a means of attracting visitors to a location where the taxable person, in carrying out his economic activities, plans to supply goods and/or services?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-55/09: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/82

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat)
   (Case T-55/09) (1)

   2013/C 225/184
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht, Wiesbaden, by orders of that court of 27 February 1998 in the cases of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against Duarte dos Santos Sousa (C-68/98), Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against Santos & Kewitz Construções Lda (C-69/98), Portugaia Construções Lda against Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-70/98) and Engil Sociedade de Construção Civil S.A. against Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-71/98) (Cases C-68/98 to C-71/98)

text:
30.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 166/3
    birds or any disturbances affecting the birds, in breach             mentioned in Annex I of the directive and for
    of Directive 79/409/EEC (1), in particular Articles 2                migratory birds are inadequate to enable those birds to
    and 4 thereof, and Directive 92/43/EEC (2) the                       continue to exist and to reproduce. The Commission
    Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                  consequently      considers     that    the    Netherlands
    obligations under the Treaty; and                                    authorities have failed to comply with Article 4(1) and
                                                                         (2).
Ð order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                   Ð In accordance with Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/
    costs.                                                               EEC on habitats, the Netherlands must take
                                                                         appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of
                                                                         conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                         the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the
                                                                         species for which the areas have been designated,
Ð a general obligation is imposed on the Member States                   insofar as such disturbance could be significant in
    by Article 2 of Directive 79/409/EEC on wild birds to                relation to the objectives of the directive. According to
    take the requisite measures to maintain the bird                     Article 7 of that directive, that obligation replaces the
    population at a level which corresponds to ecological,               obligations arising under the first sentence of
    scientific and cultural requirements, or to adapt the                Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC and thus applies
    population to that level. In so doing Member States                  to the Waddenzee. The policy implemented by the
    may take account of economic and recreational                        Netherlands Government results in a deterioration of
    requirements. The severe decline in certain types of                 the quality of the habitat of the species of birds
    bird which feed on cockles or mussels or have an                     concerned in the special conservation area of the
    effect on fishing of shellfish in some other way is an               Waddenzee; the disturbances for those species are
    indication that the Netherlands policy does not satisfy              significant in relation to the objectives of the directive.
    that general requirement, since the measures necessary               The Commission therefore considers that the
    to maintain the bird population at a satisfactory level              Netherlands authorities have failed to comply with
    are still lacking.                                                   Article 6(2) of the directive on habitats.
                                                                    (1) Directive 79/409/EEC of the Council of 2 April 1979 on the
    It appears from the recommendations from various                    conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103 of 2.4.1979, p. 1.
    parties that even bearing in mind the economic                  (2) Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1992 on the
    importance of shellfish fishing, it is none the less                conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,
    possible to restrict the environmental effects to a                 OJ L 206 of 21.5.1992, p. 7.
    greater extent than is attainable with the current
    policy of the Netherlands Government. The
    possibilities of taking account of the interests of the
    fishing industry in a manner which has less effect on
    the environment have clearly not been studied by the
    Netherlands authorities. The Commission concludes               References for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
    therefore that the Netherlands Government has not               Wiesbaden, by orders of that court of 27 February 1998
    complied with Article 2 of the directive on wild birds.         in the cases of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bau-
                                                                    wirtschaft against Duarte dos Santos Sousa (C-68/98),
                                                                    Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft
    Article 4 of the directive on wild birds does not               against Santos & Kewitz ConstrucËoÄes Lda (C-69/98),
    contain any provision of the same kind as that in               Portugaia ConstrucËoÄes Lda against Urlaubs- und Lohnaus-
    Article 2 which makes it possible to take account,              gleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-70/98) and Engil
    inter alia, of economic requirements. The Netherlands           Sociedade de ConstrucËaÄo Civil S.A. against Urlaubs- und
    Waddenzee, which is designated a special protection                   Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-71/98)
    area for the purposes of the directive is a wet zone of                           (Cases C-68/98 to C-71/98)
    international importance for water birds, in respect of
    which the Netherlands therefore bears a particular                                        (98/C 166/05)
    responsibility. According to Article 4(1) the
    Netherlands is required to adopt special conservation           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    measures in respect of the species mentioned in                 European Communities by orders of the Arbeitsgericht
    Annex I in order to ensure the survival and                     (Labour Court), Wiesbaden, of 27 February 1998,
    reproduction of those species. Certain birds mentioned          received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1998, for a
    in Annex I can be found in the Netherlands part of the          preliminary ruling in the cases of Urlaubs- und Lohnaus-
    Waddenzee and nest there. Similar measures must be              gleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (Holiday and Wage
    taken for regularly occuring migratory species not              Equalisation Fund of the Construction Industry) against
    listed in Annex I as regards their breeding, moulting           Duarte dos Santos Sousa (C-68/98), Urlaubs- und Lohn-
    and wintering areas and staging posts along their               ausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against Santos &
    migration routes. A number of species of migratory              Kewitz ConstrucËoÄes Lda (C-69/98), Portugaia ConstrucËoÄes
    birds regularly call in at the Netherlands part of the          Lda against Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bau-
    Waddenzee. The Commission concludes from the                    wirtschaft (C-70/98) and Engil Sociedade de ConstrucËaÄo
    information available to it that the protective measures        Civil S.A. against Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der
    adopted by the Netherlands authorities for the birds            Bauwirtschaft (C-71/98) on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 166/4             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.5.98
1. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                  employers resident in Germany which in certain cases
   interpreted as infringed by a provision of national law            results in different businesses falling within the field of
   Ð the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Arbeit-              application of the generally binding collective
   nehmerentsendegesetz (Law on the Posting of                        agreement?
   Workers) Ð which extends the application of
   provisions of collective agreements which have been
   declared generally binding concerning the collection of        4. Is Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC (2) of the
   contributions and the grant of benefits in connection              European Parliament and of the Council of
   with workers' holiday entitlements by joint bodies of              16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers
   parties to collective agreements, and thus the                     in the framework of the provision of services to be
   provisions of those agreements concerning the scheme               interpreted as in any event, having regard to the
   to be complied with in that regard, to employers                   correct interpretation of Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the
   resident abroad and their workers who have been                    EC Treaty, neither requiring nor permitting the rules at
   posted to the area within which those collective                   issue in Questions 1, 2 and 3?
   agreements apply?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 307 of 13.12.1993, p. 18.
                                                                  (2) OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997, p. 1.
2. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
   interpreted as infringed by the second sentence of
   Paragraph 1(1) and the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3)
   of the Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz which result in the
   application of provisions of collective agreements
   declared to be generally binding which:
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret
                                                                  by order of 12 March 1998 in the case of DAT-SCHAUB
   (a) provide for a length of leave which exceeds the             a.m.b.a. v Ministeriet for Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
       minimum length of annual leave laid down in                                        (Case C-74/98)
       Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November
       1993 (1) concerning certain aspects of the                                          (98/C 166/06)
       organisation of working time; and/or
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   (b) allow employers resident in Germany to claim the           European Communities by order of 12 March 1998 from
       reimbursement of expenditure on holiday pay and            the éstre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
       holiday allowances from joint bodies of the parties        received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1998, for a
       to the collective agreements whereas, in the case of       preliminary ruling in the case of DAT-SCHAUB a.m.b.a. v
       employers resident abroad, they do not provide for         Ministeriet for Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Ministry
       such a claim but instead for a direct claim by the         of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries) on the following
       posted workers against the joint bodies of the             question:
       parties to the collective agreements; and/or
                                                                  Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the
   (c) in connection with the social fund scheme to be            European Economic Community and the countries parties
       complied with under those collective agreements,           to the Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab
       impose on employers resident abroad obligations            States of the Gulf, approved by Council Directive 89/147/
       to provide information to the joint bodies of the          CEE of 20 February 1989 (1), must the term non-member
       parties to the collective agreements whereby the           country' in the second subparagraph of the Article 17(2)
       amount of information to be given exceeds the              of Regulation (CEE) No 3665/87 (2) laying down common
       amount required from employers resident in                 detailed rules for the application of the system of export
       Germany?                                                   refunds on agricultural products be construed as meaning
                                                                  that countries parties to the Charter are treated as one
                                                                  single non-member country, with the result that a product
3. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be              which, after processing in the Jebel Ali Free Zone in the
   interpreted as infringed by Paragraph 1(4) of the              United Arab Emirates, is imported into and released for
   Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz under which Ð for the               free circulation in another of the countries parties to the
   purposes of classifying businesses as covered by a             Charter is to be regarded as having been imported in the
   collective agreement which has been declared generally         unaltered state within the meaning of Article 17 of the
   binding and which, under the first sentence of                 regulation?
   Paragraph 1(3) of that Law, also applies to employers
   resident abroad and their workers who have been                (1) OJ L 54 of 25.2.1989, p. 1.
   posted to the area within which that collective                (2) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
   agreement applies Ð all workers posted to Germany,
   but only those workers, are treated as a business,
   while a different definition of a business applies to


C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-234/92 P: Shell International Chemical Company Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Reopening of the oral procedure - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission)

text:
C 333/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.11.1999
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                         of 8 July 1999
                                                                        in Case C-245/92 P: Chemie Linz GmbH v Commission of
in Case C-234/92 P: Shell International Chemical Com-                                    the European Communities (1)
pany Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
(Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance             — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
— Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules                  of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by                        the College of Members of the Commission)
          the College of Members of the Commission)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/11)
                        (1999/C 333/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-234/92 P: Shell International Chemical Company                                   in the European Court Reports)
Ltd, whose registered office is in London, United Kingdom,
represented by K.B. Parker QC, instructed by J.W. Osborne,
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             In Case C-245/92 P: Chemie Linz GmbH, whose registered
Chambers of J. Hoss, 15 Côte d’Eich, supported by DSM NV,               office is in Linz, Austria, represented by O. Lieberknecht,
whose registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands, represented         Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in        Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Bonn, 22 Côte d’Eich,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains              supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in Heerlen,
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance            Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar,
of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 10 March                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1992 in Case T-11/89 Shell v Commission [1992] ECR II-757,              L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — appeal against the judgment
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                    (First Chamber) of 10 March 1992 in Case T-15/89 Chemie
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),            Linz v Commission [1992] ECR II-1275, seeking to have that
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                  judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Rag-           the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. zur
nemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Hol-                Hausen) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
stein, Deputy Registrar and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal              P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
8 July 1999, in which it:                                               G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
                                                                        trar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                it:
2. Orders Shell International Chemical Company Ltd to pay the           1. Dismisses the appeal;
    costs;
                                                                        2. Orders Chemie Linz GmbH to pay the costs;
3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
                                                                        3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 187 of 24.7.1992.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 212 of 18.8.1992.


title: Case C-257/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court dated 15 June 2004, in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke against Frank Staddon Ltd and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield and K.V. Barnes against Marshalls Clay Products Ltd

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court dated 15 June 2004, in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke against Frank Staddon Ltd and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield and K.V. Barnes against Marshalls Clay Products Ltd
   (Case C-257/04)
   (2004/C 217/25)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division dated 15 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke and Frank Staddon Ltd, and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield, K.V. Barnes and Marshalls Clay Products Ltd, on the following questions:

               1)

               Does a contractually binding arrangement between an employer and a worker, which provides that a specific part of the wages paid to the worker represents that worker's ‘holiday pay’/ (an arrangement known as rolled up holiday pay), involve a violation of the worker's right to be paid for his annual leave under Article 7 of the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (1)?

               2)

               Would the answer to question 1 be different if the worker was paid the same before and after the binding arrangement in question coming into force so that the effect of the arrangement was not to provide for additional pay, but, rather, to attribute part of the wages payable to the worker to holiday pay?

               3)

               If the answer to question 1 is yes, is it a violation of the right to paid annual leave under Article 7 for credit to be given for that payment so as to set this off against the entitlement afforded under the Directive?

               4)

               In order to comply with the obligation under Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC to ensure that a worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, is it necessary for the payment to be made to the worker in the pay period in which he takes his annual leave, or is it sufficient to comply with Article 7 that the payment is made throughout the year in instalments?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18-24


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols against the Council of the European Union (Case T-99/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 / 19
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols against                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
              the Council of the European Union
                           ( Case T-99/97)                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 181 /36 )
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 f 1 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols, residing
at Halsteren ( Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange.                                                         Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Pablo Jimenez
                                                                         Fernandez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( Case T-101 /97 )
— annul the Council's decision of 13 August 1996                                                      ( 97/C 181 /38 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                          (Language of the case: French)
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Council on 27 December 1996                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      by Pablo Jimenez Fernandez, residing at Overijse
                                                                         ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996
                                                                               rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                               Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                                adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Andre Pening against
                                                                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-100/97 )                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                             ( 97/C 181 /37 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
An action against the Commission of the European                         Case T-16/97 (').
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                     ( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
by Andre Pening, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Massimo Lombardini
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                                ( Case T- 102/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                                     ( 97/C 181 /39 )
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                       An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-330/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Övre Norrland (Sweden)) — Criminal proceedings against Fredrik Granberg (Excise duties — Mineral oils — Atypical transport)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Övre Norrland (Sweden)) — Criminal proceedings against Fredrik Granberg
   (Case C-330/05) (1)

   (Excise duties - Mineral oils - Atypical transport)
   (2008/C 8/05)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Hovrätten för Övre Norrland
   Party in the main proceedings
   Fredrik Granberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hovrätten för Övre Norrland — Interpretation of Article 9(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Import by private individuals of mineral oils already released for consumption in another Member State — Atypical means of transport
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court rules:

               1.

               Article 9(3) of the Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, does not allow Member States generally to impose excise duty in the Member State of consumption on heating oil acquired in another Member State by a private individual for own use and transported by him to the Member State of consumption, irrespective of the means of transport used.

               2.

               The transport by a private individual of 3 000 litres of heating oil in three ‘intermediate bulk containers’ on board a van constitutes an atypical mode of transport within the meaning of Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108.

               3.

               Article 7(4) of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108, does not preclude the legislation of a Member State of destination in which excise duty is chargeable, as allowed under Article 9(3) of that directive, from imposing on any private individual who has personally acquired, for his own use, heating oil in another Member State where it has been made available for consumption, and transported the product himself to the Member State of destination by means of an atypical mode of transport, within the meaning of Article 9(3), to have lodged a guarantee to ensure payment of the excise duties and to have an accompanying document as well as a document confirming lodgement of the guarantee of payment of the excise duties.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case T-595/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Othman v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/18

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-595/14)
   2014/C 361/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case T-103/09: Action brought on 11 March 2009 — von Oppeln-Bronikowski and von Oppeln-Bronikowski v OHIM — Pomodoro Clothing (promodoro)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/39

         Action brought on 11 March 2009 — von Oppeln-Bronikowski and von Oppeln-Bronikowski v OHIM — Pomodoro Clothing (promodoro)
   (Case T-103/09)
   2009/C 113/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Anna Elisabeth Richarda von Oppeln-Bronikowski and Baron Zebulon Baptiste von Oppeln-Bronikowski (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. Knies, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pomodoro Clothing Company Ltd. (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2009 in case R 325/2008-1

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘promodoro’, for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35 — application No 3 587 557

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘POMODORO’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly took into account proof of use submitted out of time by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; Infringement of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal within the required time limit did not constitute sufficient proof of use of the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings; Infringement of Article 8(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in question.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-611/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-471/13: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma v European Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/39

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-471/13: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma v European Commission
   (Case C-611/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (represented by: D.W. Hull, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in whole or in part the Judgment under appeal;

               —

               Annul in whole or in part the Decision;

               —

               Cancel or substantially reduce the fine;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on nine grounds of appeal based on errors of law by the General Court.

               1)

               The General Court applied the wrong legal standard to evaluate whether Alpharma was a potential competitor in the context where its products infringed Lundbeck’s patents. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that Lundbeck’s patents were weak, the patents must be presumed to be valid and entry with infringing product to be illegal.

               2)

               Despite acknowledging that Alpharma only discovered shortly before the settlement that Lundbeck’s patent would be granted and that its products infringed Lundbeck’s patents, the General Court failed to evaluate whether the Commission had proven that entry by Alpharma remained an economically-viable strategy in light of these additional barriers to entry. Instead, the General Court relied on evidence not cited in the Decision and incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the Appellants to disprove the Commission’s allegation that Alpharma was a potential competitor.

               3)

               The General Court applied the wrong legal standard to assessed whether the Settlement Agreement constituted a restriction of competition ‘by object’, as it failed to evaluate whether the Commission had demonstrated that the Settlement Agreement was sufficiently likely to have negative effects, and failed to take into account the fact that the Commission had no prior experience with this kind of patent settlement.

               4)

               The General Court failed to assess whether the Commission had proven its allegation that the restriction in the Settlement Agreement exceeded the scope of Lundbeck’s patents.

               5)

               The General Court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing whether the duration of the Commission’s investigation was excessive and violated the Appellants’ rights of defence.

               6)

               The General Court erred in upholding the Commission’s decision to address the Decision to Zoetis (now Alpharma LLC), but not to Merck Generics Holding GmbH, despite the Commission’s failure to provide any basis in the Decision for distinguishing between the situations of these two companies.

               7)

               The General Court erred in law in finding that the state of the law was sufficiently clear at the time of the Settlement Agreement that the Appellants could ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations were and take steps accordingly.

               8)

               The General Court erred in upholding the Decision despite the Commission’s clear failure to take the gravity of the alleged infringement into account in setting the fine as required under Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1).

               9)

               The General Court applied the wrong legal standard in determining the relevant year for the calculation of the 10 % cap on the level of the fine imposed upon A.L. Industrier.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

      OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-10/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Belgian Conseil d'État): Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux ASBL and Société d'Études Ornithologiques AVES ASBL v. Région Wallone; intervener: Fédération Royale Ornithologique Belge ASBL (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Prohibition of capture - Derogations)

text:
No C 40/6               ( EN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       observance of the maximum limit of 'small numbers '
                           (Third Chamber )                                    referred to in that provision.
                         of 12 December 1 996                            (') O I No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
in Case C-10/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Belgian Conseil d'État): Ligue Royale Belge pour la
Protection des Oiseaux ASBL and Société d'Études
Ornithologiques AVES ASBL v. Région Wallone;
intervener: Fédération Royale Ornithologique Belge
                                 ASBL (')                                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
 (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of                                              (Fourth Chamber)
       wild birds — Prohibition of capture — Derogations)                                       of 12 December 1996
                              ( 97/C 40/ 11 )                            in Case C-49/96 P Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    (Official — Appeal clearly inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/12 )
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                           (Language of the case: French)
              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 In Case C-10/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177                          published in the European Court Reports)
 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                In Case C-49/96 P: Nicolaos Progoulis ( represented by
 court between Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des                  Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis) —
 Oiseaux          ASBL,      along     with    Societe     d'Études       appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance
 Ornithologiques AVES ASBL, and Region Wallone;                           ( Fifth Chamber ) of 15 December 1995 in Case T-l 31 /95
 intervener : Federation Royale Ornithologique Beige ASBL                 Progoulis v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-907, seeking
 — on the interpretation ' of Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Council            to have that order set aside , the other party to the
 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1 979 on the conservation                proceedings being the Commission of the European
  of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979, p. 1 ) — the               Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, assisted by
  Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                  Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ),
  Almeida , President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                          composed of J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), President of the
  ( Rapporteur ) and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fennelly,               Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ;
  Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein , Deputy Registrar, for               C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made
  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 ,               an order on 12 December 1996 , in which it :
  the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                           1 . dismisses the appeal as clearly inadmissible;
   1 . Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
        conservation of wild birds , and in particular Article 9           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
        ( 1 ) (c) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a
        Member State may not, on a decreasing basis and for                (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
        a limited period, authorize the capture of certain
        protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to
        stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction
        of those species in captivity arc possible but are not
        yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact
        that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their                Appeal brought on 17 September 1996 by Giorgio
        installations and change their habits.                              Bernardi against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
                                                                            by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
    2.   National authorities are authorized under Directive
                                                                            the European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
                                                                                European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi
         79/409/EEC, and in particular under Article 9 (1 ) (c)
         thereof, to permit the capture of protected species with                                   ( Case C-303 /96 P )
         a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational                                           ( 97/C 40/ 13 )
         purposes, the problems of consanguinity which would
         result from too many endogenous crossings, on
         condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, it         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
         being understood that the number of specimens which                 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
         may be captured must be fixed at the level of what                  European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
         proves to be objectively necessary to provide a                     European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi was brought
         solution for those problems, subject always to                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities