title: Case C-471/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA Cido Grupa v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA ‘Cido Grupa’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-471/11)
   2011/C 331/24
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Cido Grupa’

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1) laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to be interpreted as meaning that, where an operator has been found to be in possession of an individual surplus of a product which may be classed as sugar within the meaning of Article 4, No 1, of the regulation, that operator is required to pay the State Treasury a sum which is calculated on the basis of the quantity of white sugar (Combined Nomenclature code 1701 99 10) corresponding to the sugar content of the product found in the operator’s possession, and not on the basis of the quantity of the actual product found in its possession (for example, sugar syrup)?

               2.

               In the calculation of that payment, are the highest import duty rates applicable to white sugar to be applied instead of those applicable to the actual product found in the operator’s possession?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8.


title: Case F-68/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Bakema v Commission (Staff case — Contract staff — Classification in grade — Function group IV — Diploma — Professional experience)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Bakema v Commission
   (Case F-68/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Contract staff - Classification in grade - Function group IV - Diploma - Professional experience)
   (2008/C 209/126)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Reint J. Bakema (Zuidlaren, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Rijpkema and A. Kootstra)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's Decision refusing to reclassify the applicant from grade 14 to grade 16 in function group IV and to regard his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’ as attesting to completed university studies for the purposes of Article 82 of the CEOS and of Article 2 of the GPI concerning the procedures governing the engagement and employment of contract staff by the Commission
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision by which the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement classified Mr Bakema in function group IV at grade 14, step 1, under the contract signed on 25 October 2005 recruiting him to the Commission of the European Communities as a member of the contract staff;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006, p. 48


title: Case C-175/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 March 2013 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 March 2013 — MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis v Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee
   (Case C-175/13)
   2013/C 156/39
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus (Estonia)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant: MTÜ Liivimaa Lihaveis

      Defendant and respondent: Eesti-Läti programmi 2007-2013 Seirekomitee

      Intervener: Eesti Vabariigi Siseministeerium

      Questions referred

               2.1

               Are the Member States taking part in the Estonia-Latvia Programme 2007-2013, when setting up the monitoring committee referred to in Articles 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 (1) and Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, (2) required, in accordance with the third sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to agree which court has jurisdiction to hear actions brought against decisions of the monitoring committee and under which law the actions are heard?

               2.2

               If the answer Question 2.1. is in the affirmative, yet there is no such agreement, is it then consistent with Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 if an action brought against a decision of the monitoring committee is heard on the basis of national law by a court of the Member State of the person who has brought the action?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Dijon by judgments of that court of 26 February 1997 in the cases of Procureur de la Republique and Syndicat de Défense de l'Epoisses and Others against Yvon Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol respectively (Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97)

text:
No C 142/ 16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                    matters before the Court of Justice, acting as Agent, with
Grande Instance de Dijon by judgments of that court of                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
26 February 1997 in the cases of Procureur de la                         Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
Republique and Syndicat de Defense de l'Epoisses and
Others against Yvon Chiciak and Jean-Pierre Fol
                                respectively                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  ( Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/32 )                            — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in
                                                                                the Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97 (')
                                                                                of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                            for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may
Grande Instance de Dijon ( Regional Court, Dijon ) of                           be fished,
26 February 1997, which were received at the Court
Registry on 1 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
cases of Procureur de la République and Syndicat de Dé
fense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appellations
d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF)
against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak ( Case                       The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
C-129/97) and Procureur de la République and Syndicat                    those in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
de Défense de l'Epoisses, Institut National des Appella
tions d'Origine Contrôlées ( INAO ), Association Nationale               (') OJ No L 66, 6 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .
d'Appellation d'Origine Laitière Française ( ANAOF) Sari .               ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
' Laiterie de la Côte', SA 'Fromagerie Henri Germain ' and
SA ' Fromagerie Berthaut' against Jean-Pierre Fol ( Case
C-130/97) on the following questions:
— Does Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 (')
       preclude as from its entry into force any residual
       power on the part of the Member States to alter a
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-23/96 ( 1 )
       preexisting designation of origin ?
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/34 )
— Do the particulars given in the form of footnotes to
      the annex to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/                 By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Sixth
       96 ( 2 ) constitute an exhaustive list of parts of names          Chamber of the Court Of Justice of the European
       made up of several terms which as such are not                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       protected ?                                                       Case C-23/96 : Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         v. French Republic .
(') OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                              (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                                  Removal from the register of Case C-46/95 ( ')
        Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/35
                            ( Case C-132/97 )
                              ( 97/C 142/33 )
                                                                         By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  removal from the register of Case C-46/95 : Commission
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Communities on 27 March 1997 by the Kingdom of                           Luxembourg.
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado
del Estado of the State Legal Department dealing with                    O OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case T-353/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/22

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission
   (Case T-353/06)
   (2007/C 20/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Vermeer Infrastructuur BV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               principally, annul Decision C(2006) 4090 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL); or

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2(d) and 3 of the decision in so far as (i) those provisions find that Vermeer participated in the fixing of the gross price for the sale and purchase in the Netherlands of bitumen for use in road construction, and (ii) a fine and an injunction were imposed in that regard;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul Article 2(d) of that decision in so far as that provision imposed a fine on Vermeer;

               —

               in the yet further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on Vermeer by Article 2(d) of the decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action the claimant alleges a breach of Article 81 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission failed to prove that the claimant had participated in the fixing of the gross prices for bitumen or that it had itself any interest whatever in such fixing. The Commission thereby wrongly concluded that the bitumen suppliers and the road construction companies had participated in one and the same breach of Article 81 EC.
   The claimant submits further that the Commission has failed to demonstrate that the claimant participated in collusion between a group of bitumen suppliers and a group of major road construction companies for the purpose of fixing, on a regular basis, a smaller rebate on the gross price for other road construction companies.
   Further, the claimant alleges, the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and the guidelines for the setting of fines in that it failed to prove (i) that the claimant had participated in a very serious breach of Article 81 EC and (ii) that the claimant's involvement in the alleged breach had lasted from 1 April 1994 to 15 April 2002. Consequently, in the view of the claimant, the Commission took an excessively long period into account for the purpose of calculating the fine imposed on it.
   In conclusion, the claimant alleges a breach of Article 253 EC and an infringement of essential procedural requirements.


               10.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/8

         Action brought on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-15/13)
   2013/C 294/08
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Catherine Howdle acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 5 November 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 5 September 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order, Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (the Act), as referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has no information before it that could indicate that the Act has been fully implemented.


title: Case T-315/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2008 — Grohe v OHIM — Compañía Roca Radiadores (ALIRA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2008 — Grohe v OHIM — Compañía Roca Radiadores (ALIRA)
   (Case T-315/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 171/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Grohe AG (Hemer, Germany) (represented by: A. Lensing-Kramer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Compañía Roca Radiadores, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2007 (Case R 850/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Grohe AG and Compañía Roca Radiadores, SA.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-162/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise — Italy) — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2014/24/EU — Participation in a tendering procedure — Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work — Judicial obligation to include such a reference — Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/10

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise — Italy) — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni
   (Case C-162/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Directive 2014/24/EU - Participation in a tendering procedure - Tenderer having failed to refer in the tender to the business charges relating to safety and security at work - Judicial obligation to include such a reference - Exclusion from the contract without the possibility of rectifying that omission))
   (2017/C 063/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Monteroduni

      Joined party: I.c.i Impresa Costruzioni Industriali Srl and Others, Alba Costruzioni ScpA, Ottoerre Group Srl

      Operative part of the order

   The principle of equality of treatment and the duty of transparency, as implemented by Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, must be interpreted as precluding the exclusion of a tenderer from a procedure for the award of a public works contract as a result of the tender’s failure to comply with a requirement to indicate clearly in the tender the business charges relating to safety and security at work — for which the penalty for non-compliance is exclusion from the procedure — a requirement which arises, not expressly from the procurement documents or from national legislation, but from an interpretation of that legislation and the filling of gaps in those documents by the national court adjudicating at last instance. The principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality must also be interpreted as not precluding such a tenderer from being afforded the opportunity of remedying the situation and satisfying that requirement within a time-limit set by the awarding authority.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case C-329/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
   (Case C-329/16)
   (2016/C 296/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France

      Defendants: Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

      Question referred

   Must [Council] Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 [concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1)] be interpreted as meaning that software, the purpose of which is to offer to prescribers practising in towns, a health establishment or a medico-social establishment support for determining a drug prescription, in order to improve the safety of prescription, facilitate the work of the prescriber, encourage conformity of the prescription with national regulatory requirements and reduce the cost of treatment at the same quality, constitutes a medical device within the meaning of that directive, where that software has at least one function that permits the use of data specific to a patient to help his doctor issue his prescription, in particular by detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, even though it does not itself act in or on the human body?


title: Case T-502/08: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to rule)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/18

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline)
   (Case T-502/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to rule)
   2010/C 195/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wofsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. S. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Deutsche BP AG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2008 (Case R 513/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Deutsche BP AG and Volkswagen AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Holds that there is no need to rule on the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant and the defendant to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-209/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
22.7.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 211/13
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
The pleas in law and main arguments                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the third paragraph Article 249 of the EC Treaty, a                In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 is binding in its
each Member State to which it is addressed. Under Article 10(1)          entirety on the Federal Republic of Germany as its addressee,
of the Treaty, Member States are to take appropriate measures,           and it is to be implemented immediately. Since 4 August 1989
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the               the Federal Republic of Germany has been obliged under
obligations arising out of that Treaty or resulting from action          Article 2 of the decision to adopt all necessary measures to
taken by the institutions of the Community.                              withdraw the aid, which was made available unlawfully, and
                                                                         to recover it from the recipient. Under Article 3, Germany
The Commission finds that, to date, despite the fact that the            must communicate to the Commission within two months
prescribed time-limit has expired, the Italian Republic has not          following notification of the decision the measures adopted to
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to comply           comply with it. In accordance with Article 242 EC, the actions
with Directive 97/36/EC and must therefore declare that the              brought against the decision (1) do not have suspensory effect;
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              an application for suspension of operation of the decision is
Article 2 of the directive.                                              possible under that provision but none has been made.
                                                                         Proposals made hitherto by the Federal Government for
                                                                         implementing the decision have been unacceptable for the
(1) OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
                                                                         Commission. Nor was repayment made before a final deadline
(2) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                expired.
                                                                         (1) By the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-376/99), Westdeut-
                                                                             sche Landesbank Girozentrale (T-228/99) and the Land of
                                                                             Nordrhein-Westfalen (T-233/99).
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany
                          (Case C-209/00)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
                                                                         Travail de Mons (Second Chamber) by judgment of that
                          (2000/C 211/22)                                court of 24 May 2000, in the case of Salvatore Stallone
                                                                                against Office National de l’Emploi
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                                     (Case C-212/00)
ties on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco Santaolalla, Principal
                                                                                (2000/C 211/23)
Legal Adviser, and Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                                 European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
                                                                         de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) (Second Chamber) of 24 May
                                                                         2000, received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2000, for a
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Salvatore Stallone against
                                                                         Office National de l’Emploi on the following question:
1. declare that, by not adopting within the period laid down
     all necessary measures to withdraw aid and reclaim
     from Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale aid already               Do the EC treaties, the EC rules, and in particular Articles 1(f)
     granted, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to              and 68(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 Decem-
     fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and Article 3 of        ber 1996 (1), in their current versions or in their version
     Commission Decision K (1999) 2265 final of 8 July 1999              between 1 December 1990 and the date hereof, preclude
     by which the State aid granted by Germany in favour of              Article 110(1), first and second subparagraphs, of the Royal
     Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in the years 1992              Decree of 25 November 1991 concerning rules on unemploy-
     to 1998 was declared incompatible with the common                   ment in that this national provision makes the award of a
     market;                                                             better rate of unemployment benefit subject to a condition


title: Case C-560/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Wam Industriale SpA v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Establishing a company in certain third countries — Soft loans — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Wam Industriale SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-560/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Establishing a company in certain third countries - Soft loans - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)
   2014/C 9/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Wam Industriale SpA (represented by: E. Giliani and R. Bertoni, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-303/10 Wam Industriale v Commission, in which the General Court rejected an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable time-limit

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Wam Industriale SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-332/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/24

         Action brought on 10 July 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-332/12)
   2012/C 287/45
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, L. Nicolae and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to comply with the obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/18, at a daily rate of EUR 56 095,20 and payable from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 17 June 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 131, p. 114.


title: Case T-53/15: Action brought on 28 January 2015 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/33

      Action brought on 28 January 2015 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)
      (Case T-53/15)
      (2015/C 107/43)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Curodont’ — Application for registration No 10 332 807

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 in Case R 353/2014-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order OHIM and Aldi Karlslunde to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-12/96 (1)              removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (reference for a
                         (98/C 312/19)                            preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin): VR-
                                                                  Leasing GmbH v. Margit Bertram.
By order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
removal from the register of Case C-12/96: Portuguese
Republic v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-351/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/23)
                                                                  By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-39/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/20)                            removal from the register of Case C-351/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Court of             Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-39/98: Commission of          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
the European Communities v. Silena SpA.
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/24)
      Removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (1)              By order of 13 July 1998 the President of the Court of
                         (98/C 312/21)                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-250/96 (reference for
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of             a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bre-
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               scia): Criminal proceedings against Riccardo Piccaluga.
removal from the register of Case C-327/96 (reference for
a preliminiary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ente         (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Genova v. Ministero
delle Finanze.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-297/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 312/25)
                                                                  By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-30/98 (1)              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                         (98/C 312/22)                            removal from the register of Case C-297/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 9 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 274, 9.11.2002

text:
23.11.2002        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 289/41
                                                             III
                                                           (Notices)
                                                     (2002/C 289/73)
              Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
           Past publications
           OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
           OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
           OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
           OJ C 219, 14.9.2002
           OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
           OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
                                                These texts are available on:
                                           EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                             CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-255/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 May 2013 — Peter Flood v Health Service Executive

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 May 2013 — Peter Flood v Health Service Executive
   (Case C-255/13)
   2013/C 189/27
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Flood

      Defendant: Health Service Executive

      Question referred

   Is an insured citizen of a Member State (‘the First Member State’) who has been gravely ill for eleven years as a result of a serious medical condition which first manifested itself while that person was resident in the First Member State but was on holidays in another Member State (‘the Second Member State’) to be regarded as ‘staying’ in that Second Member State for that period for the purpose of either Article 19(1) or, alternatively, Article 20(1) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 883/2004 (1) where the person in question has been effectively compelled by reason of his acute medical illness and the convenient proximity to specialist medical care physically to remain in that Member State for that period?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems
   OJ L 166, p. 1


title: Joined Cases T-147/09 and T-148/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Trelleborg Industrie and Trelleborg v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Concept of continuing or repeated infringement — Limitation period — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Trelleborg Industrie and Trelleborg v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-147/09 and T-148/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Concept of continuing or repeated infringement - Limitation period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement)
   2013/C 189/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Trelleborg Industrie SAS (Clermont-Ferrand, France) (Case T-147/09); and Trelleborg AB (Trelleborg, Sweden) (Case T-148/09) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as that decision concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for annulment or a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on them in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(g) and (h) of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as it applies to the period from 13 May 1997 to 21 June 1999;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-104/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi): Oleifici Italiani SpA v Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Puglia (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly identical question)

text:
C 79/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                     of 16 December 1999                                  in Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the
                                                                          European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
in Case C-104/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                      (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi):
Oleifici Italiani SpA v Direzione Regionale delle Entrate
                          per la Puglia (1)                                                         (2000/C 79/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                        identical question)                               In Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim
                                                                          (Germany), represented by J-C Schöninger, Rechtsanwalt, Lahr
                                                                          — appeal against the Order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities, First Chamber, of 5 May 1999 in
                          (2000/C 79/07)
                                                                          Case T-190/08, Karola Gluiber v Council and Commission
                                                                          (not published in the Court Reports), seeking to have that
                                                                          order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                          Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities — the Court (First Chamber), compo-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        sed of L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                          and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                          R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 December 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-104/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi                   1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provincial Tax Court Brindisi), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Oleifici             2. Ms Gluiber shall bear her own costs.
Italiani SpA and Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Puglia
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC on
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English special             (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
edition, 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                                        Austria
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 does not preclude the levying on                                        (Case C-412/99)
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/09)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-285/12: Action brought on 28 June 2012 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/13

         Action brought on 28 June 2012 — Cartoon Network v OHIM — Boomerang TV (BOOMERANG)
   (Case T-285/12)
   2012/C 273/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boomerang TV, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2012 in case R 699/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BOOMERANG’ for services in classes 38 and 41

      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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1160050 of the figurative mark ‘Boomerang TV’, for services in class 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-484/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 27 November 2006 — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 27 November 2006 — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-484/06)
   (2007/C 20/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the rounding-off of VAT amounts governed solely by national law, or — particularly in view of the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the First Directive (1) and Article 11 A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive and Article 22(3)(b), first sentence, (version as at 1 January 2004) and (5) of the Sixth Directive (2) — is it a matter for Community law?

               2.

               If the latter is the case, does it follow from the aforementioned provisions of the Directives that the Member States are required to permit rounding-down per article, even if different transactions are included in one invoice and/or one tax return?

      (1)  First Council Directive of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-332/99: Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 299/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down             Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down
by Article 8 of the directive expired on 23 August 1996 but               by Article 17 of the directive expired on 30 June 1998 but
France has not adopted the necessary measures.                            France has not adopted the necessary measures.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 59 of 27.2.1998, p. 1.
(1) Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council      (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
    of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the transmission
    of television signals (OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51).
(2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-332/99)
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission                                                 (1999/C 299/25)
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                           (Case C-320/99)                                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                           (1999/C 299/24)                                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              The Commission claims that the Court should,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. Declare that, by not communicating or by not adopting
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office                 administrative provisions necessary for it to comply with
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         Article 1 points 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of Council Directive
                                                                               93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending for the sixth time
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                               the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), the
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                    French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative                       the Treaty.
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive                 2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws
     of the Member States relating to measures against the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
     internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
     mobile machinery (1), alternatively by failing in any event          Case C-316/99 (2). The time-limit for implementation laid
     to communicate those measures to the Commission, the                 down by Article 3 of Directive 93/35/EEC expired on 11 June
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under           1995.
     that directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ L 151 of 23 June 1993, p. 32.
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Correctionnel, Liège, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as Président of the Association Pharmaceutique Belge (Case C-231/95)

text:
2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 May 1995 in Case T-478/93: Wafer Zoo Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy P Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products P Commission Decision 90/342/EEC on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments eligible for Community assistance P Decision of the Commission rejecting a financing project P Action for annulment and damages)

text:
No C 208/ 18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
of the Court ofJustice and the third paragraph of Article 5 of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, the decisions of                                        of 8 June 1995
2 June 1994 i 1 ) and 18 January 1995 (2 ) on the designation
of the Presidents of Chambers, the composition of the                   in Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
Chambers and the assignment of cases to them would                                         European Communities ( l )
continue to apply and President of the Court Jose Luis da               (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements for
Cruz Vilaça could continue to exercise the presidency of the            ice-cream — Relevant market — Possible barriers to entry to
Court of First Instance .                                               the market by third parties — Trade between Member
                                                                        States — Comfort letter — Block exemption — Lawfulness
(') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                       of the withdrawal of the exemption — Prohibition of
( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                                concluding exclusive agreements in the future)
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 18 May 1995                               In Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH, established in
in Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri v. Commission of the                   Hamburg ( Germany), represented by Martin Heidenhain,
                    European Communities ( J )                          Bernhard M. Maassen and Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                        Frankfurt-am-Main, with an address for service in
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Council Regulation (EEC)
No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing                     Luxembourg at the chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich
conditions for agricultural products — Commission                       v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Decision 90/342/EEC on the selection criteria to be adopted             Bernd Langeheine and Alexander Böhlke ), supported by
for investments eligible for Community assistance —                     Mars GmbH, established in Viersen ( Germany ), represented
Decision ofthe Commission rejecting a financing project —               by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and by John
                                                                        Pheasant, Solicitor, with an address for service in
               Action for annulment and damages)
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, 14a Rue
                             ( 95/C 208/37 )                            de Bains — application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                        Decision 93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                       proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against
                                                                        Langnese-Iglo GmbH ( IV/34.072 ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
In Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri, established in Pesaro                 Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
( Italy ), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of the Padua           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H.
Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.                   Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in
                                                                        which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( agents:
Eugenio de March and Alexandre Carnelutti ) —
application, first, for the annulment, pursuant to Article 1 73         1 . annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/406/EEC
of the EC Treaty, of Decision C ( 92 ) 2264 of 30 September                   of 23 December 1 992 relating to a proceeding pursuant
1992, by which the Commission refused the financing of a                      to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Langnese-Iglo
project submitted by the applicant under Council                              GmbH (IV/34.072);
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
improving the processing and marketing conditions for
agricultural products ( 2 ), and, second, for compensation              2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty for the
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:             3 . orders the applicant to bear all the costs of            the
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and H. Kirschner and A.                        proceedings, including those in respect of             the
Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                       application for interim measures and those of          the
judgment on 18 May 1995 , in which it:                                        intervener, with the exception of one-quarter of       the
                                                                              costs incurred by the defendant;
1 . annuls Decision C (92) 2264 of the Commission of
      30 September 1992;
                                                                        4 . orders the defendant to bear one-quarter of its own
                                                                              costs .
2 . dismisses the claim for damages;
3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 26 . 7. 1993 , p . 19 .
(!) OJ No C 146 , 26 . 5 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 .


title: Case C-228/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-228/12)
   2012/C 217/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-39/00: Action brought on 24 February 2000 by PlantaVet Vertrieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH against the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

text:
13.5.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 135/17
— infringement of Article 218 of the Treaty by the Rules                 withdrew the contested act thereby rendering each application
    of Procedure of the Commission [C(1999)4000] (1), of                 devoid of purpose.
    18 September 1999 in so far as they do not contain
    effective deterrent sanctions to ensure that the Commission          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
    and its departments operate, in accordance with the                  submitted in the above mentioned cases.
    provisions of the EC Treaty, to protect the proper adminis-
    tration of justice. In particular, the Commission is in breach       ( 1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
    of the obligation to adopt and maintain in force all                 ( 2) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999, p. 11.
    measures necessary to penalise any persons subject to its            ( 3) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 28.
    jurisdiction.                                                        ( 4) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000, p. 30.
(1) OJ 252 of 25.9.1999, p. 41.
                                                                         Action brought on 24 February 2000 by PlantaVet Ver-
                                                                         trieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH against the
                                                                         European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Prod-
Action brought on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                                                        ucts
Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                                         (Case T-39/00)
                           (Case T-36/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/33)
                          (2000/C 135/32)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Medicinal Products was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 24 February 2000
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                by PlantaVet Vertrieb Biologischer Tierarzneimittel GmbH,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               whose registered office is in Bad Waldsee (Germany), represent-
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Sonia Marion                 ed by Rüdiger Zuck, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address
Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby,                for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong,
Solicitor.                                                               4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 January 2000                — annul the Agency’s decisions EMEA/V/BJF/jc./38309/99
    refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee                       and EMEA/V/BJF/jc.38311/99 of 20 December 1999 and
    relating to the consultations required by Article 4(4) of                 the decisions of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
    Sixth VAT Directive prior to the adoption by the United                   Products CVMP/543/99 and CVMP/544/99;
    Kingdom of Schedule 1 of the VAT Act 1994 and sections               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    31(2), (4) and Schedule 18 Pt. IV(I) of the 1997 Finance
    Act;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First        The applicant challenges decisions of the European Agency for
    Instance.                                                            the Evaluation of Medicinal Products and of the Committee
                                                                         for Veterinary Medicinal Products which held it impossible to
                                                                         evaluate the substances Arnica and Symphytum from the point
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          of view of residual toxicity. As a result, those substances
                                                                         cannot be entered in Annexes I to III to Council Regulation
The applicants in the present case challenge the refusal by the          (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
defendant to allow access to certain documents for which they            procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of
have applied under Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,                   veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin.
Euratom, of 8 February 1994, on public access to Commission              The applicant markets veterinary medicinal products with
documents (1).                                                           those substances and considers itself affected by the contested
                                                                         decisions. It considers that it provided adequate information
The applicants state in this connection that this application is         for the assessment of residual toxicity and that on the strength
the fourth which they have had to bring against conduct of               of that information classification in Annex 1 or Annex 11
the part of the Commission which has, hitherto, prevented the            should have taken place.
request for access from being considered on the merits. In Cases
T-78/99 (2), T-178/99 (3) and T-356/99 (4) the Commission


title: Case T-290/07: Action brought on 31 July 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/18

         Action brought on 31 July 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
   (Case T-290/07)
   (2007/C 235/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia, S. A. (Madrid, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 29 May 2007 in Case R 1315/2006-2 as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Metronia, S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘METRONIA’ for goods in class 9 and goods and services in classes 20, 28 and 41 — application No 3 387 834

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative trade mark ‘METRO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41, among others

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the opposition and allowed the application to proceed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR
   The applicant claims that the contested decision is inconsistent with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR insofar as the Board held there was no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, due to a lack of similarity of the signs concerned.


title: Case C-237/00: Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 233/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September               Pleas in law and main arguments
            1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/
            EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
            and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (2),                     advanced in Case C-236/00 (2); the period for transposition
                                                                       expired on 30 June 1998.
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply
      with its obligations under Article 10 of Directive
      98/51/EC and Article 7 of Directive 98/67/EC;                    (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 25.
                                                                       (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC obliges        the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of
the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in order             First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)
to transpose directives into their national legal order within         in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European
the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in                                           Parliament
question expired on 31 December 1998 but the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures.                                          (Case C-238/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/42)
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000
                                                                       by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the
                                                                       European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Peter
                                                                       Reichert, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                       Eicklöhken 19, D-45549 Sprockhövel (Germany), with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of                    Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box 335, L-2013 Luxembourg.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the
                        (Case C-237/00)                                      Court of First Instance in Case T-18/98;
                        (2000/C 233/41)                                —     itself determine the appellant’s application for the grant
                                                                             of the expatriation allowance, or alternatively refer the
                                                                             case back to the Court of First Instance for re-examination
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          and a fresh decision;
brought before the Court of Justice on 14 June 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 —     order the European Parliament, as respondent, to pay the
Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an               costs of the entire proceedings.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     The appellant’s employment as a correspondent in the
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Brussels press office of the VWD, which was taken into
the Court should:                                                            consideration in the contested judgment as a ground for
                                                                             the refusal of the expatriation allowance, lasted only
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or notify within the                 20 months and thus does not in any way constitute a
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and admi-                  substantial part of the 66-month period referred to in
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with                  Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
      Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on                      officials.
      marine equipment (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 20       —     The Court of First Instance failed to give any consideration
      of that directive and under the provisions of the EC                   to the professional position occupied by the appellant
      Treaty;                                                                during the remaining period (namely, that of Brussels
                                                                             correspondent for the publication ‘Wirtschaftswoche’, the
—     order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                      editorial headquarters of which is situated in Düsseldorf).


title: Case C-338/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Dumping — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7)(a) — Determination of normal value — Non-market economy country — Commission’s obligation to take due care to determine normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-338/10) (1)

   (Dumping - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7)(a) - Determination of normal value - Non-market economy country - Commission’s obligation to take due care to determine normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country)
   2012/C 133/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity, in the light of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), of Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 of 4 July 2008 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 178, p. 19) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35) — Determination of normal value for a country which does not have a market economy — Determination of normal value on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for like products in the European Union — Obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 to take the measures necessary to determine normal value on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market-economy third country.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.