title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Versailles by judgment of that court of 8 September 1995 in the case of Javico International and Javico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent Parfums (Case C-306/96)

text:
No C 336/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
    and Chemnitz, in the form of investment subsidies                 de Versailles ( Versailles Court of Appeal ) of 8 September
    amounting to DM 90,7 million, the Federal Republic of             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    Germany has infringed the decision of the Commission              23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    of 26 June 1996 on the grant of aid by Germany to the             Javico International and Jafico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent
    Volkswagen group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz                  Parfums on the following questions :
    and the third sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC
    Treaty,                                                           1 . Where an undertaking ( the supplier ) situated in a
                                                                           Member State of the European Union by contract
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                         entrusts another undertaking ( the distributor ) situated
    costs .                                                                in another Member State with the distribution of its
                                                                           products in a territory outside the Union, must
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                           Community be interpreted as prohibiting provisions in
Infringement of Community law, in particular the third                     that contract which preclude the distributor from
sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty: the legality of the         effecting any sales in a territory other than the
decision of the Commission is a matter to be determined by                 contractual territory, and hence any sale in the Union,
the Court of First Instance, in which the Free State of Saxony             either by direct marketing or by redirection from the
has in the meantime lodged an application for a declaration                contractual territory ?
of nullity pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty ( Case
T-126/96 ). Until such time as a final judgment has been              2 . In the event that the said Article 85 ( 1 ) prohibits such
delivered in that action, Germany and, consequently, the                   contractual provisions, must it be interpreted as not
Free State of Saxony are obliged to comply fully with the                  being applicable where the supplier otherwise
decision of the Commission .
                                                                           distributed his products on the territory of the Union by
                                                                           means of a selective distribution network which has
                                                                           been the subject of an exemption decision under
                                                                           Article 85 ( 3 )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria in the case Fiera
SpA against Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and
                    Impresa Romagnoli SpA
                        ( Case C-304/96 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                          ( 96/C 336/37 )                             Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                      16 November 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Customs and Excise against T. P. Madgett and R. M.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                             Baldwin trading as The Howden Court Hotel
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria ( Regional                                              ( Case C-308/96 )
Administrative Court of Liguria ), First Civil Chamber, of                                       ( 96/C 336/39 )
4 July 1 996 , received at the Court Registry on 1 9 September
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hera SpA
against Unita Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and Impresa             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Romagnoli SpA, on the question :                                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                      Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 16 November 1995 ,
whether or not the Community rules allow — and if so in               which was received at the Court Registry on 23 September
what cases — a Member State to make temporary                          1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
exceptions regarding the entry into force of directives where         Commissioners of Customs and Excise against T. P.
the latter prescribe an appropriate time-limit.                       Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as The Howden Court
                                                                      Hotel , on the following questions:
                                                                       1 . What are the criteria for determining whether the
                                                                           operations of a taxable person are the operations of a
                                                                           'travel agent' or 'tour operator' to which the provisions
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de                of Article 26 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) of
Versailles by judgment of that court of 8 September 1995 in                 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
the case of Javico International and Javico AG v. Yves Saint               Member States relating to turnover tax ( the sixth
                        Laurent Parfums                                     Directive on value added tax ) apply ? In particular, do
                        ( Case C-306/96 )                                  the said provisions apply to the operations of a person
                                                                           who, though not a 'travel agent' or 'tour operator' in the
                           ( 96/C 336/38 )                                  ordinary English meanings of those expressions ,
                                                                            provides for the benefit of travellers services of a kind
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      commonly provided by travel agents or tour
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                      operators ?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 16 March 1995 in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG v. Oberfinanzdirektion München (Case C-121/95)

text:
No C 159/ 18            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
     of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of               module' for the assembly of a data-processing machine,
     the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal              consisting of a housing with inter alia two disk-drives, as
     cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally to                     described in more detail in the grounds of the reference,
     Article 9 ( 2 )?                                                     is to be classified in subheading No 8471 93 59 either
                                                                          directly or pursuant to General Rule 3b as a ' storage
4 . Where a decision has been taken to exclude a                          unit', on the basis of the drives it contains ?
     Community national from the territory of a Member
     State other than his own on public policy or public              2.  If not :
     security grounds and the Community national has left
     that territory without there having been an appeal or                Is it correct to classify a product such as that described
     reference for an advisory opinion to an independent                  above as a 'part' ( of a data-processing machine ) under
     competent authority pursuant to Articles 8 or 9 of                   subheading No 8473 30 90 of the customs tariff
     Directive 64/22 1 /EEC, does that Community national                 provisions ?
     have a right of reference to an independent competent
     authority under Article 9 ( 2 ) if that national
     subsequently returns or seeks to return to the territory of
     the Member State CQncerned, in respect of:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
     ( a ) the refusal of an application for a residence permit;      van Beroep by order of that court of 9 December 1994 in the
           or                                                         case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v. Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                                Verzekeringsbank
     ( b ) the refusal of an application for entry; or
                                                                                ( Case C-126/95 )
     ( c ) a decision ordering expulsion ?                                                       ( 95/C 159/35 )
5 . Do the answers to question 4 vary according to                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     whether :                                                        European Communities by an order of the Centrale Raad
                                                                      van Beroep ( Court of last instance in social security matters )
     ( a ) the applicant has entered the territory of the             of 9 December 1994, which was received at the Court
           Member State before asking for a residence                 Registry on 13 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
           permit;                                                    case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v . Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                      Verzekeringsbank ( Board of the Social Insurance Bank ) on
     ( b ) the applicant has been expelled from the Member            the following question:
           State before he has asked for a residence permit, or
           has never asked for a residence permit;                    Should Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement
                                                                      between the EC and Morocco be interpreted as precluding
     ( c ) the earlier departure was as a result of a decision
           ordering expulsion, or of a threat of detention and
                                                                      imposing the requirement of Netherlands nationality on the
           expulsion and was followed by a decision to
                                                                      spouse — a member of the family within the meaning of
           exclude ?                                                  Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Agreement — of a Moroccan worker in
                                                                      order to obtain entitlement to transitional benefits within
                                                                      the meaning of the Netherlands Algemene Ouderdomswet
(M OJ No L 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964 , p. 850 .
                                                                      ( Law on Old Age )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 16 March                    Commerce, Lyon, by judgment of that court of 2 January
1995 in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG v.                         1995 , rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , in the case
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                         of Fontaine SA and Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles
                         ( Case C-121/95 )                                                             Sari
                           ( 95/C 159/34 )                                                     ( Case C-128/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/36 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 16 March             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April           Commerce ( Commercial Court), Lyon, of 2 January 1995 ,
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vobis                  rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , which was
Microcomputer AG v . Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                     received at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a
( Principal Revenue Office, Munich ) on the following                 preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Fontaine SA, 2 . Garage
questions :                                                           Laval SA, 3 . Fahy SA, 4 . Renault Lyon Ouest FLB
                                                                      Automobiles SA, 5 . Société de Diffusion Vallis Auto SA —
1 . Is the Common Customs Tariff (combined                            SDV, 6 . Horizon Sud SA v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sari on
     nomenclature ) to be interpreted as meaning that a 'basic        the following questions:


title: Case C-57/03: Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 83/11
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by the Commission                        Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy
                                  Spain                                                              of Luxembourg
                            (Case C-55/03)                                                           (Case C-56/03)
                            (2003/C 83/17)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/18)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Febru-               An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Marina                     ties on 12 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Valverde López, a member of the auxiliary staff of its Legal                Communities, represented by Karen Banks, acting as Agent,
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                            the Court should:
—      Declare that, by failing to implement Council Directives
       89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 ( 1) and 92/51/EEC of
                                                                            —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
       18 June 1992 (2) on a second general system for the
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       recognition of professional education and training to
                                                                                comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
       supplement Directive 89/48/EEC in connection with the
                                                                                ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
       profession of air traffic controller in the civil sector, the
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1), or in any event by failing to
       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand-
       the EC Treaty;
                                                                                Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      under Article 19 of that directive;
                                                                            —     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC apply, not to
diplomas awarded on completion of academic education but                    Pleas in law and main arguments
rather to diplomas awarded on completion of education and
training at the end of which the holder of such a diploma is
                                                                            The period within which the directive had to be transposed
fully qualified to practise a given profession. In consequence,
                                                                            expired on 28 October 2001.
it is not the diploma giving access to training as an air traffic
controller which must be recognised in accordance with those
directives, but the final diploma giving access to the profession           (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.
of air traffic controller in the civil sector. Having regard to the
provisions of Royal Decree 3/1998, the Commission considers
that that profession is regulated in Spain for the purposes of
Article 1(d) of Directive 89/48/EEC and the settled case-law of
the Court of Justice.
The Member States are required to transpose directives into
their national legal order. The fact that there exists a law                Action brought on 12 February 2003 by the Commission
approved by Eurocontrol does not relieve Spain of that                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
obligation.
                                                                                (Case C-57/03)
( 1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
     system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                                (2003/C 83/19)
     on completion of professional education and training of at least
     three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 24 January 1989, p. 16).
( 2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
     system for the recognition of professional education and training
     to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 of 24 July 1992,           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     p. 25).                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/12                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                             by order of that Court of 4 February 2003 in the case of
                                                                                Y.G. Encheva against Staatssecretaris van Justitie
a)    declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
      comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                (Case C-58/03)
      European Communities of 9 March 2000 in Case C-386/
      98 ( 1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 228(1) EC.                                                                        (2003/C 83/20)
b)    impose a penalty payment on the Italian Republic in the
      sum of EUR 238 950 per day from the date of notification               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council
      of the judgment in the present case to the date of
      execution thereof.                                                     of State) of 4 February 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                             12 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                             Y.G. Encheva against Staatssecretaris van Justitie on the
c)    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           following questions:
                                                                             1.    Is Article 59(1) of the Agreement establishing an associ-
                                                                                ation between the European Communities and their
                                                                                Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
                                                                                Bulgaria, of the other part, to be interpreted as precluding
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    the refusal of an application made in the Netherlands for
                                                                                an ordinary residence permit subject to a restriction that
                                                                                the person concerned be ‘self-employed’ on the grounds
                                                                                that the foreigner concerned, who is a national of
Under Article 228(1) EC, where the Court of Justice finds that                     Bulgaria, did not apply in that country or in the country
a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the                        of permanent residence for a temporary residence author-
Treaty, that State is required to take the measures necessary to                   isation to be issued to that end and await the decision
comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice.                                  thereon in that country before coming to the Netherlands
                                                                                and therefore failed not satisfy the requirement laid down
                                                                                by Article 3.71(1) of the Vb 2000?
                                                                             2.    Does the fact that, unlike the situation concerned in the
Notwithstanding the repeated assurances of the Italian Govern-                     judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 September 2001
ment that the implementation of Directive 93/104 (2) into
                                                                                in Case C-257/99 [Barkoci and Malik], the foreigner
Italian law was imminent, it must be found that Italy has
                                                                                concerned already intended to work as a self-employed
not yet notified the Commission of the national measures
                                                                                person before leaving Bulgaria for the Netherlands and
implementing that directive. It should be noted that, pursuant
                                                                                failed to apply for such authorisation in Bulgaria despite
to Article 18(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 93/104, those measures
                                                                                having an opportunity to do so have any bearing on the
should have been notified by 23 November 1996.
                                                                                answer to the first question?
In those circumstances, the Commission must find that the
Italian Republic has failed to adopt the measures necessary to
comply with the judgment of the Court of 9 March 2000 in
Case C-386/98, and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
under Article 228 EC.                                                        Genova — Sezione Lavoro by order of that Court of
                                                                             28 January 2003 in the case of Mario Cigliola and Others
                                                                                against Ferrovie dello Stato SpA
Pursuant to Article 228(2) EC, the Commission requests that
the Court impose a penalty on the Italian Republic in the sum                                         (Case C-59/03)
of EUR 238 950 for each day’s delay in complying with the
Court’s judgment in Case C-386/98, with effect from the date                                          (2003/C 83/21)
of judgment in the present case.
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000, p. 2.                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
( 2) OJ L 307 of 13.12.1993, p. 18.                                          — Sezione Lavoro (District Court, Genoa — Employment
                                                                             Division) of 28 January 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                             on 13 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                             Mario Cigliola and Others against Ferrovie dello Stato SpA on
                                                                             the following question:


title: Case T-267/08: Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/13

         Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission
   (Case T-267/08)
   (2008/C 247/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (represented by: M. Cliquennois and F. Cavedon, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision C (2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008, concerning State Aid No C 38/2007 (ex NN 45/2007) implemented by France in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision C(2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008 by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the applicant and the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA in the form of advances repayable at an annual rate of interest of 4,08 % corresponding to the Community reference rate applicable when the loan was granted. The Commission considered that, taking into account its financial standing, Arbel Fauvet Rail SA would not have been able to obtain funds on such favourable terms in the financial market.
   The applicant claims first that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and disregarded its obligation to state reasons, inasmuch as it considered that the source of the funds was, in part, the Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis and did not take account of the specific legal features of the Communauté d'agglomération which is a public institution of intercommunity cooperation endowed with administrative and budgetary autonomy in relation to the towns and communities which are members of it. The applicant considers that the aid granted is consequently not attributable to the State.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission committed errors of assessment (i) by describing Arbel Fauvet Rail SA as a firm in difficulty and (ii) by considering that Arbel Fauvet Rail SA could not have obtained the operative rate of interest in normal market conditions.
   The applicant claims in addition that the Commission did not conduct its examination of the case with the required diligence, inasmuch as it did not specify either the amount of the aid to be recovered, nor the value of the aid and it did not provide any evidence capable of justifying an increased interest rate to be applied to the repayable advances because of a situation of particular risk in relation to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA.
   Lastly, the applicant relies on an infringement of the principle that both parties should have the right to be heard, since the applicant's views were not heard during the administrative procedure.


title: Case C-533/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Roubaix — France) — Compagnie internationale pour la vente à distance (CIVAD) SA v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes (Community Customs Code — Article 236(2) — Repayment of duties not legally owed — Time-limit — Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 — Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan — Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 — Repayment of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to a regulation subsequently declared invalid — Concept of ‘force majeure’ — Time at which the obligation to repay import duties arises)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Roubaix — France) — Compagnie internationale pour la vente à distance (CIVAD) SA v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes
   (Case C-533/10) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 236(2) - Repayment of duties not legally owed - Time-limit - Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan - Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 - Repayment of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to a regulation subsequently declared invalid - Concept of ‘force majeure’ - Time at which the obligation to repay import duties arises)
   2012/C 227/03
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Roubaix

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compagnie internationale pour la vente à distance (CIVAD) SA

      Defendants: Receveur des douanes de Roubaix, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects de Lille, Administration des douanes

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de Roubaix — Interpretation of the second and third sub-paragraphs of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Application for repayment of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan (OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1), subsequently declared invalid — Unlawfulness amounting to force majeure — Time at which the obligation to repay duties arises

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second subparagraph of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the unlawfulness of a regulation is not a case of force majeure within the meaning of that provision, allowing an extension of the three-year time limit during which an importer can request the repayment of import duties paid pursuant to that regulation.

               2.

               The third subparagraph of Article 236(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000, must be interpreted as not allowing national customs authorities to repay, on their own initiative, anti-dumping duties collected pursuant to a European Union regulation, on the basis of a finding by the Disputes Settlement Body that that regulation was not in accordance with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, set out in Annex 1A of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakech on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994).

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and Case T-439/12: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/31

      Order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and Case T-439/12) (1)

      (Actions for annulment - Competition - Cartels - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Partial manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/41)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano, SA (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: in Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Case T-439/12, initially F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, then F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, and, in Case T-439/12, C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

         Re:

      Applications for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C (2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  In Case T-427/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  In Case T-576/10, the action is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

                  3.

                  The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.

                  4.

                  Trefilerías Quijano, SA is ordered to pay the costs relating to the pleas in law and forms of order directed against Commission Decision C (2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C (2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) made in Case T-427/10 and the costs in Case T-576/10.

         (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-384/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 55/32                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        8.3.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
proportionality and breach of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations based on the existence of Community
financing for the production and marketing of ‘Feta’.                        The applicant is an official at the Commission in Brussels. In
                                                                             June 2000, on taking up his appointment, he settled in
                                                                             Brussels. His spouse subsequently settled in Brussels with him
( 1) OJ L 277, p. 10.                                                        and organised the removal of the family, which took place on
( 2) Judgment in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96                11 April 2001, whilst continuing to be present at her
     Denmark and Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                      former home in Madrid, where their youngest daughter was
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the              completing her secondary education. Consequently, his spouse
     protection of geographical indications and designations of origin       and daughter did not join him until July 2001, which they
     for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208, p. 1).              declared to the Privileges and Immunities service.
                                                                             By the contested decision, the Commission refused to pay the
                                                                             applicant the second half of the installation allowance.
                                                                             In support of his action, the applicant pleads an error of law
                                                                             and a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant,
Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Fernando                               the administration attached decisive importance to the declar-
Valenzuela Marzo against Commission of the European                          ations made by his spouse and daughter to the Privileges and
                            Communities                                      Immunities service. The applicant states that the concept of
                                                                             installation is a factual concept and that the text of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations does not prescribe any particular mode of proof.
                           (Case T-384/02)
                                                                             The applicant also pleads an error of law and an omission of
                           (2003/C 55/83)                                    essential facts, since the administration considered the period
                                                                             laid down by Articles 5(4) and 9(3) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                             Regulations to be a mandatory time-limit and did not consider
                      (Language of the case: French)                         the possibility of waiving it by reason of the complainant’s
                                                                             establishment as an official on taking up his appointment and
                                                                             the fact that his daughter was unable to join her parents in
                                                                             Brussels before the end of the school year.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Fernando
Valenzuela Marzo, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-
Albert Lucas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Action brought on 16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G.
                                                                             against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
—      annul the decisions of the head of the Administration of                            (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
       Individual Rights unit of the Adminstration Directorate-
       General of 16 November 2001 and 13 February 2002                                               (Case T-386/02)
       refusing the applicant the second half of the installation
       allowance;
                                                                                (2003/C 55/84)
—      annul the decision of the appointing authority of 16 Sep-
       tember 2002 rejecting the complaint through official                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
       channels of 9 May 2002 against the abovementioned
       decisions;
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant the second
                                                                             An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       half of his installation allowance together with default              Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
       interest at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from
                                                                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
       11 April 2001 and until payment is made in full;
                                                                             16 December 2002 by Lamprecht A.G., whose registered
                                                                             office is in Madrid, represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez.


title: Joined Cases C-287/06 to C-292/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln, Germany) — Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06, C-288/06 and C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH (C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Field reserved to universal postal service provider — Special tariffs for the deposit by business customers, at fixed points of the postal network, of minimum quantities of pre-sorted items — Refusal of such tariffs to intermediaries who consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln, Germany) — Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06, C-288/06 and C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH (C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Joined Cases C-287/06 to C-292/06) (1)

   (Postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - Field reserved to universal postal service provider - Special tariffs for the deposit by business customers, at fixed points of the postal network, of minimum quantities of pre-sorted items - Refusal of such tariffs to intermediaries who consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders)
   (2008/C 107/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06, C-288/06 and C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH (C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06)

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervening parties: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH (C-287/06), Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH (C-288/06), Deutsche Post AG (C-289/06, C-290/06 and C-292/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-291/06),
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 47(2) EC and 95 EC and of the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21) — Obligation on a universal postal service supplier also to offer special tariffs, applied to business customers who themselves transport pre-sorted postal items to the sorting offices of dispatch, to professional suppliers of postal services who collect the postal items from the senders and then, like the business customers, pre-sort and deliver them to a sorting office of dispatch
   Operative part of the judgment
   The fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002, must be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum quantities of pre-sorted mail at its sorting offices.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case T-93/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  17 May 2006  — Kallianos v Commission (Officials — Deductions from salary — Maintenance payments in divorce proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment of a national court)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2006 — Kallianos v Commission
   (Case T-93/04) (1)

   (Officials - Deductions from salary - Maintenance payments in divorce proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of a national court)
   (2006/C 165/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Theodoros Kallianos (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: G. Archambeau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision relating to some of the deductions from the applicant's pay pursuant to interim measures ordered by a Belgian court, for reimbursement of those sums and for the payment of damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case F-24/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 23 January 2013 — Katrakasas v Commission (Civil service — Internal competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 10 — Fraud prevention — Reconsideration of the decision to admit to take the oral test — Reconsideration of the decision not to include on the reserve list — Objection of illegality of the notice of competition — Conditions concerning diplomas and professional experience — Anonymity rule — Infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Subject of the written test favouring one category of candidates — Behaviour of a member of the selection board during the oral test)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 23 January 2013 — Katrakasas v Commission
   (Case F-24/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Internal competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD 10 - Fraud prevention - Reconsideration of the decision to admit to take the oral test - Reconsideration of the decision not to include on the reserve list - Objection of illegality of the notice of competition - Conditions concerning diplomas and professional experience - Anonymity rule - Infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers - Subject of the written test favouring one category of candidates - Behaviour of a member of the selection board during the oral test)
   2013/C 71/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, Agent)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the competition selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list in competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Katrakasas to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p.33.


title: Case C-280/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA (Competition — Imposition of fines where undertakings succeed each other — Principle of personal responsibility — Entities belonging to the same group of undertakings or answering to the same public authority — National law referring to Community competition law as source of interpretation — Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/17

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA
   (Case C-280/06) (1)

   (Competition - Imposition of fines where undertakings succeed each other - Principle of personal responsibility - Entities belonging to the same group of undertakings or answering to the same public authority - National law referring to Community competition law as source of interpretation - Questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   (2008/C 51/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appelant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Respondents: Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc., Philip Morris International Management SA

      Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA

      Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA

      Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris International Management SA

      Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 81 EC — Agreement concerning the sale price of cigarettes in beach of national anti-trust legislation — Attribution to the legal person which is the economic successor of an undertaking of liability in respect of breaches committed by that undertaking before its activities were taken over by that successor
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 81 EC et seq. must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of entities answering to the same public authority, where conduct amounting to one and the same infringement of the competition rules was adopted by one entity and subsequently continued until it ceased by another entity which succeeded the first, which has not ceased to exist, that second entity may be penalised for that infringement in its entirety if it is established that those two entities were subject to the control of the said authority.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


18.12.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 366/33
       Removal from the register of Case T-198/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-97/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/76)                                                         (1999/C 366/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 9 July 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Case T-198/96: Christine Dalby v Commission of the European              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-97/98:
Communities.                                                             Maurizio Gastaldello v Committee of the Regions of the
                                                                         European Union.
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-218/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/77)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-78/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/80)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-218/96: Paul Hodson v Commission of the European                  By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the First
Communities.                                                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-78/99: Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                             Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-59/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/78)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/81)
By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                   (Language of the case: French)
the register of Case T-59/98: Honeywell Inc. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 22 October 1999, the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                            the removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R: Luigia
                                                                         Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 1995 in Case C-451/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht für das Saarland): Claudine Delavant v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse für das Saarland (Social security for migrant workers - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Worker residing in a Member State other than the competent State - Benefits in kind for members of the worker's family in the State of residence)

text:
22 . 7 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 189/5
and Forestry ) — on the interpretation of Article 1 9 ( 1 ) (c ) of                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Council Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993                                           ( Sixth Chamber)
on the common organization of the market in bananas ( 2 )
and Article 2 (c ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                                                  of 8 June 1995
No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for              in Case C-451/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the application of the arrangements for importing bananas              from the Landessozialgericht fur das Saarland ): Claudine
into the Community ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),                        Délavant v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fur das
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur), President of                                             Saarland (*)
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray                (Social security for migrant workers — Council Regulation
and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                   (EEC) No 1408/71 — Worker residing in a Member State
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has            other than the competent State — Benefits in kind for
given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which it rules:                    members of the worker's family in the State of residence)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/10 )
 1 , the definition of Category C operators contained in
      Article 2 (c) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                                       (Language of the case: German)
      No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules
      for the application of-the arrangements for importing             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       bananas into the Community does not differ from that                      published in the European Court Reports)
      contained in Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Council Regulation
       (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common
      organization of the market in bananas;                           In Case C-451 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Landessozialgericht fiir das
                                                                       Saarland ( Higher Social Court, Saarland) for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
2 . Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              Claudine Délavant and Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse fiir
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 are to be           das Saarland ( Local General Sickness Fund, Saarland), in the
      interpreted as meaning that, when applying for                   presence of Valérie and Stéphanie Délavant, interveners in
      registration under Category C, an operator must not              the main proceedings — on the interpretation of Articles
      already have developed an activity aimed at marketing             1 ( f), 2 ( 1 ), 3 ( 1 ), 19 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( 2 ), and 20 of Council
       bananas;                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                                                                       application of social security schemes to employed persons,
                                                                       to self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                       moving within the Community, as codified by Council
3 . Article 19 (1 ) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (2 ) — the
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 are to be           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,
      interpreted as meaning that an operator may apply for            President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris
      registration under Category C even if he intends to
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G.
      transfer the import licence to a third party;                   Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       8 June 1995 , in which it rules :
4. Economic operators who entered into business prior to
       1 992 with a view to importing the bananas specified in         Article 19 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
      Article 2 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 and who             14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
      imported those bananas in 1992 or later can be                   to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
      registered as Category C operators;                              members oftheir families moving within the Community, as
                                                                       codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June
                                                                       1983 , is to be understood as meaning that when a worker
5 . Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 , which               resides with the members of his family in the territory of a
                                                                       Member State other than the Member State in which he
      provides that wholesalers and retailers are not to be
      regarded as operators, is not applicable to the concept of       works, under whose legislation he is insured by virtue ofthe
      operator within the meaning of Article 2 (c) of that             Regulation, the conditions for entitlement to sickness
      Regulation.                                                      benefits in kind for members of that person's family are also
                                                                      governed by the legislaton ofthe State in which that person
                                                                       works in so far as the members of his family are not entitled
                                                                       to those benefits under the legislation of their State of
(') OJ No C 256, 21 . 9 . 1993 .                                       residence.
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 , p . 6 .
                                                                       (M OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .


title: Case T-222/09: Action brought on 1 June 2009 — INEOS Healthcare v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/61

         Action brought on 1 June 2009 — INEOS Healthcare v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-222/09)
   2009/C 180/112
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: INEOS Healthcare Ltd (Warrington, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      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 24 March 2009 in case R 1897/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs, as well as those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “ALPHAREN”, for goods in class 5

      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: Hungarian trade mark registration of the word mark “ALPHA D3” for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration of the word mark “ALPHA D3” for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration of the word mark “ALPHA D3” for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to take account of the fact that the other party to the proceedings before it had failed to adduce evidence of similarity between the respective goods; Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 and the right to be heard as the Board of Appeal wrongly based material parts of its decision on evidence on which the applicant was not provided with an opportunity to present its comments; Infringement of Article 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal, in proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal of registration, failed to restrict itself to an examination of the facts, evidence and arguments provided by the parties and the relief sought; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisation of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Consequences)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)
   (Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05) (1)

   (Competition - Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles - Block exemption - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 - Article 5(3) - Termination by the supplier - Reorganisation of the network - Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Article 4(1) - Hardcore restrictions - Consequences)
   (2006/C 331/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. Brünsteiner GmbH, Autohaus Hilgert GmbH

      Defendant: Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145 p. 25) and of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier, due to the need to re-organise the whole of the network because of a change in Community legislation
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may, in the light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they must be regarded as representing a true reorganisation within the meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before them, whether that is the position.

               2)

               On a proper construction of Article 4 of Regulation No 1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article 10 of that regulation has expired, the block exemption under that regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for block exemption under Regulation No 1475/95 which had as their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of competition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-454/09 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2009 by Rinse van Arum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/39

         Appeal brought on 9 November 2009 by Rinse van Arum against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament
   (Case T-454/09 P)
   2010/C 37/55
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal and the pleas in law and complaints set out therein admissible; and

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07; and

               —

               rule itself on the case and set aside the decision establishing the appellant’s staff report; and

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings that the appellant had to incur at first and second instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward the following pleas in support of his appeal:

               —

               Breach of Articles 1 and 9 of the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and the provisions of the Guide to Staff Reports;

               —

               Breach of Article 19 of the general implementing provisions and the duty to state reasons;

               —

               Breach of the principle that the parties should be heard, of the equality of the parties and the rights of the defence;

               —

               Breach of law in relation to the connection between the appraisal and the award of points, the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration;

               —

               Breach of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the use of documents which were not in the case-file and breach of the principle that the parties should be heard, as well reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the appellant and breach of the duty to state reasons;

               —

               Breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, owing to the fact that the final assessor negligently took into account incorrect elements, and breach of legal principles as regards the burden of proof;

               —

               Incorrect application of the law, case-law and legal principles as regards Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, due care, sound administration and legal principles concerning evidence;

               —

               Breach of law as a result of unintelligible findings by the Civil Service Tribunal and incorrect classification of facts, as well as breach of the duty to state reasons and the rules of sound administration;

               —

               Incorrect assessment of facts.


title: Case T-453/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/26

         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)
   (Case T-453/11)
   2011/C 298/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gilbert Szajner (Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forge de Laguiole SARL (Laguiole, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 June 2011 in so far as it stated that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is declared invalid in respect of the goods covered by the application for annulment in Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28 and 34;

               —

               Order Forge de Laguiole to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Szajner, including the costs of representation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘LAGUIOLE’ for goods and services in, inter alia, Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28, 34 and 38 — Community trade mark No 2 468 379.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Forge de Laguiole SARL.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the application for a declaration of invalidity was made on the basis of Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, based on the business name of Forge de Laguiole.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the Cancellation Division’s decision and declaration that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is invalid in part.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as, first, the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the business name of Forge de Laguiole was not subject to the principle of speciality and that the name could be protected in respect of business activities not actually carried out by Forge de Laguiole and, secondly, there is no likelihood of confusion between the business name of Forge de Laguiole, used in respect of knives, and the trade mark ‘LAGUIOLE’, registered in respect of goods unrelated to cutlery.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2004 in Case C-109/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): KPN Telecom BVv Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA) (Telecommunications — Directive 98/10/EC — Application of open network provision to voice telephony — Supply of information on subscribers — Determination of prices)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 25 November 2004
   in Case C-109/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): KPN Telecom BVv Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA) (1)

   (Telecommunications - Directive 98/10/EC - Application of open network provision to voice telephony - Supply of information on subscribers - Determination of prices)
   (2005/C 19/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-109/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), by decision of 8 January 2003, received at the Court on 10 March 2003, in the proceedings between KPN Telecom BV and Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit (OPTA), in the presence of: Denda Multimedia BV, Denda Directory Services BV – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 6(3) of Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment must be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘relevant information’ refer only to data relating to subscribers who have not expressly objected to being listed in a published directory and which are sufficient to enable users of a directory to identify the subscribers they are looking for. Those data include in principle the name and address, including postcode, of subscribers, together with any telephone numbers allocated to them by the entity concerned. However, it is open to the Member States to provide that other data are to be made available to users where, in light of specific national circumstances, they appear to be necessary in order to identify subscribers.

               2.

               Article 6(3) of Directive 98/10, in so far as it provides that the relevant information must be provided to third parties on terms which are fair, cost oriented and non-discriminatory, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           with regard to data such as the name and address of the persons and the telephone number allocated to them, only the costs of actually making those data available to third parties may be invoiced by the supplier of the universal service;

                           —

                           with regard to additional data which such a supplier is not bound to make available to third parties, the supplier is entitled to invoice, apart from the costs of making that provision, the additional costs which he has had to bear himself in obtaining the data provided that those third parties are treated in a non-discriminatory manner.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-2/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 23 December 1999 in the case of Michael Hölterhoff against Dr Ulrich Freiesleben

text:
C 63/20                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandes-                     Pleas in law and main arguments
gericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 23 December
1999 in the case of Michael Hölterhoff against Dr Ulrich
                             Freiesleben                                  Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
                                                                          a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                          upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                            (Case C-2/00)                                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                          laid down in the directive. That period expired on 17 Septem-
                           (2000/C 63/36)                                 ber 1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                          necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    conclusions of the Commission.
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court) — Twentieth
Civil Chamber — of 23 December 1999, received at the Court                (1) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 59.
Registry on 5 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Michael Hölterhoff against Dr Ulrich Freiesleben on the
following question:
Does an infringement of a trade mark in the sense contem-
plated in the second sentence of Article 5(1) and Article 5(1)(a)
and (b) of Directive 89/104/EEC(1) occur where the defendant
reveals the origin of goods which he has produced himself and
uses the sign in respect of which the plaintiff enjoys protection         Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission
solely to denote the particular characteristics of the goods he                   of the European Communities against Ireland
is offering for sale so that there can be no question of the trade
mark used being perceived in trade as a sign indicative of the
firm of origin?                                                                                (Case C-13/00)
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 1989 L 159, p. 60.                                        (2000/C 63/38)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities on 14 January 2000 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a
                                                                          national expert seconded to its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
Action brought on 11 January 2000 by the Commission                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                          Commission, Centre Wagner.
                            (Case C-8/00)
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2000/C 63/37)
                                                                          a) find that, by failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                      1995 to the Paris Act of the Berne Convention for the
Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2000 by                      Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Ireland has failed
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                        to fulfil its obligations under Article 300(7) of the EC
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                   Treaty in conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                      Agreement on the European Economic Area and
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.                                                b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 96/53/EC (1) of 25 July 1996 concerning            Under Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the
     the maximun authorised dimensions in national and                    European Economic Area (hereinafter ‘the EEA Agreement’)
     international traffic and the maximum authorised weights             Ireland was obliged to obtain its adherence, before 1 January
     in international traffic, or in any event by failing to inform       1995, to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
     the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to              and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971). This obligation also rests
     fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                         on Article 300(7) EC (ex Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          which provides that international agreements duly concluded
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.                                       by the Community shall be binding on the Member States.


title: Case C-544/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in the case of S.A Mobistar against Commune de Fléron

text:
C 47/22                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                precluding the introduction, by a national or local
                                                                                authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
                                                                                cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
This action for annulment is aimed at defending fundamental                     by licences and authorisations?
rights, especially the rights of minors, in the Community legal
order. The Directive, whilst providing for valid rules for
codifying the law governing family reunification for third-              2.     Given that Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/
country nationals, nevertheless contains a number of pro-                       EEC of 28 June 1990 (1), as inserted by Commission
visions which are unacceptable having regard to fundamental                     Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (2) amending
rights, including the right to family life and the right not to be              Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal
discriminated against, compliance with which must be ensured                    communications, refers to the lifting of ‘all restrictions’,
in the legal order of the European Union pursuant to Article 6                  does that article preclude the introduction, by a national
of the Treaty on European Union.                                                or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal
                                                                                communications infrastructures used to carry on activities
                                                                                covered by licences and authorisations?
The right to family life as recognised by Article 8 of the
1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and
interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human               (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
Rights can be restricted only for certain reasons and each case              tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192,
calls for a balancing of the interests of the third-country                  24.7.1990, p. 10).
nationals concerned and those of the host State. Derogations             (2) Commission Directive 96/2/EEC of 16 January 1996 amending
from the right to family reunification which are expressly                   Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal com-
authorised by the aforementioned provisions of the directive                 munications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59).
go beyond the permitted restrictions and violate the fundamen-
tal right to family life and the right not to be discriminated
against as guaranteed by the ECHR and as they result from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States of the
EU as general principles of Community law, as established by
Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                         (Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in
                                                                         the case of S.A. Belgacom Mobile against Commune de
                                                                                Schaerbeek
                                                                                (Case C-545/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
(Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in                                              (2004/C 47/37)
   the case of S.A Mobistar against Commune de Fléron
                         (Case C-544/03)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2004/C 47/36)                                 European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)
                                                                         of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.
                                                                         Belgacom Mobile against Commune de Schaerbeek on the
                                                                         following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)            1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on                           precluding the introduction, by a national or local
23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A                   authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
Mobistar against Commune de Fléron on the following                             cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
questions:                                                                      by licences and authorisations?