title: Removal from the register of Case T-379/94

text:
22 . 7 . 95                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 189/19
           ( i ) infringed Articles 2 ( 9 ) and 2 ( 10 ) of Regulation     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-246/94:
                 ( EEC ) No 2423/88 ;                                      Yves Tychon v. European Parliament.
         ( ii ) infringed an essential procedural requirement in           (!) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                 that it failed to comply with Article 190 of the
                 Treaty or; at least,
       ( iii ) committed a manifest error of appraisal .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-3 79/94 H
(c ) With regard to the determination of injury: in making                                           ( 95/C 189/40 )
       adjustments to the cif price of Russian-produced
       urea to compensate alleged quality differences, the                              (Language of the case: German)
       defendant :
                                                                           By order of 17 May 1995 the President of the Third
         (i)     committed a manifest error of appraisal; and              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
       ( ii )    infringed an essential procedural requirement.            T-379/94 : Frank Kessler v. Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities .
       Furthermore , in its determination of the profit margin
       necessary for Community producers, the defendant                    (!) OJ No C 386 , 31 . 1 . 1994 .
       infringed an essential procedural requirement.
f 1 ) OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T- 1 2/95 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/41 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-246/94 H
                               ( 95/C 189/39 )
                                                                           By order of 30 May 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                      (Language of the case: French)                       T-12/95 : José Hodar v. Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities .
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 (!) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .


title: Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Carbonless paper — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Duration of the infringement — Gravity of the infringement — Increase for deterrence — Aggravating circumstances — Mitigating circumstances — Leniency Notice)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2007 — Bolloré and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Carbonless paper - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the infringement - Gravity of the infringement - Increase for deterrence - Aggravating circumstances - Mitigating circumstances - Leniency Notice)
   (2007/C 96/65)
   Languages of the case: Spanish, German, English and French
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-109/02: Bolloré SA (Puteaux, France) (represented by: R. Saint-Esteben and H. Calvet, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-118/02: Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd (Basingstoke, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Brunet, lawyer, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and J. Grierson, Barrister)

      Applicant in Case T-122/02: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH, formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: I. van Bael, lawyer, and A. Kmiecik, Solicitor)

      Applicant in Case T-125/02: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (Oberkirch, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker and S. Hirsbrunner, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-126/02: M-real Zanders GmbH, formerly Zanders Feinpapiere AG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-128/02: Papeteries Mougeot SA (Laval-sur-Vologne, France) (represented initially by G. Barsi, J. Baumgartner and J.-P. Hordies, and subsequently by Messrs Barsi and Baumgartner, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-129/02: Torraspapel, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: O. Brouwer, F. Cantos and C. Schillemans, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-132/02: Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles, SL (Derio, Spain) (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano and I. Delgado González, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-136/02: Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga, SA (Hernani, Spain) (represented by I. Quintana Aguirre, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented, in Cases T-109/02 and T-128/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, lawyer, in Cases T-118/02 and T-129/02, by W. Mölls and A. Whelan, assisted by M. van der Woude, lawyer, in Case T-122/02, initially by R. Wainwright and W. Mölls, and subsequently by R. Wainwright and A. Whelan, Agents, in Cases T-125/02 and T-126/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, assisted by H.-J. Freund, lawyer, in Cases T-132/02 and T-136/02, by W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-118/02: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Snoecx and M. Wimmer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) (OJ 2004 L 115, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               In Case T-109/02 Bolloré v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               2.

               In Case T-118/02 Arjo Wiggins Appleton v Commission:

                           —

                           sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 141.75 million;

                           —

                           dismisses the remainder of the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant;

                           —

                           orders the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission related to the intervention.

               3.

               In Case T-122/02 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               4.

               In Case T-125/02 Papierfabrik August Koehler v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               5.

               In Case T-126/02 M-real Zanders v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               6.

               In Case T-128/02 Papeteries Mougeot v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               7.

               In Case T-129/02 Torraspapel v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               8.

               In Case T-132/02 Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles v Commission:

                           —

                           dismisses the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to pay the costs.

               9.

               In Case T-136/02 Papelera Guipuzcoana de Zicuñaga v Commission:

                           —

                           sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) at EUR 1 309 million;

                           —

                           dismisses the remainder of the action;

                           —

                           orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and pay one third of those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.


title: Case C-141/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Single tax on betting and pools — Tax liability of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of operators established in another Member State — Insufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/15

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano — Italy) — Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

      (Case C-141/16) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Single tax on betting and pools - Tax liability of national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of operators established in another Member State - Insufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))
      (2016/C 454/28)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

         Defendant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio dei Monopoli per la Lombardia

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale di Milano (Milan Regional Tax Court, Italy), by decision of 29 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 191 of 30.5.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-225/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public works contracts — Directives 71/305/EEC, as amended by Directive 89/440/EEC, and 93/37/EEC — Construction and maintenance of school buildings by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Région and the Département du Nord)

text:
25.11.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/11
1.    Declares that, by raising, on 1 July 1995 and 1 February                for the award of public works contracts (OJ, English Special
      1996, the tolls for the full itinerary on the Brenner motorway,         Edition 1971 (II), p. 682), as amended by Council Directive
      a transit route through Austria used predominantly by goods             89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 (OJ 1989 L 210, p. 1), in
      vehicles of a maximum permissible gross laden weight of not             particular under Articles 12, 26 and 29 thereof, and under
      less than 12 tonnes registered in other Member States, but not          Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
      for partial itineraries on that motorway, the great majority of         coordination of procedures for the award of public works
      the users of which are vehicles of a maximum permissible gross          contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular under Articles
      laden weight of not less than 12 tonnes used for the same type          8, 11, 22 and 30 thereof — the Court, composed of:
      of transport and registered in Austria, and, second, by not             G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      applying the abovementioned tolls only in order to cover the            D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
      costs linked with the construction, operation and development           Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
      of the Brenner motorway, the Republic of Austria has failed to          V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
      fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 7(b) and Article    D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
      7(h) of Council Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by               trar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it:
      Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage
      of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain           1.    Declares that, in the course of the various procedures for the
      infrastructures;                                                              award of public works contracts for the construction and
                                                                                maintenance of school buildings conducted by the Nord-Pas-
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                              de-Calais Région and the Département du Nord over a period
                                                                                of three years, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                          amendment, Article 49 EC) as well as under Articles 12(5),
                                                                                26 and 29(2) of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
                                                                                1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                                of public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
                                                                                89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, and under Articles 8(3),
                                                                                11(5), 22(2) and 30(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of
                                                                                14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public works contracts;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                          of 26 September 2000                                3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
in Case C-225/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                        ties v French Republic (1)                            (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public
works contracts — Directives 71/305/EEC, as amended by
Directive 89/440/EEC, and 93/37/EEC — Construction and
maintenance of school buildings by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               Région and the Département du Nord)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                             (2000/C 335/20)
                                                                                of 26 September 2000
                       (Language of the case: French)                         in Case C-322/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg): Bärbel Kachelmann v
                                                                                Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              (Social policy — Male and female workers — Access to
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              employment and working conditions — Equal treatment —
                                                                                Conditions governing dismissal)
In Case C-225/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                                                 (2000/C 335/21)
Bellanger and A. Viéville-Bréville) application for a declaration
that, in the course of the various procedures for the award of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
public works contracts for the construction and maintenance
of school buildings conducted by the Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Région and the Département du Nord over a period of three                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
years, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                                  in the European Court Reports)
under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) as well as under Council Directive 71/305/EEC                  In Case C-322/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Audiencia Provincial


title: Case F-97/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/39

         Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-97/12)
   2012/C 355/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Commission not to recruit the applicant after her success in the EPSO/AD/177/10-EPA competition and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 November 2011 refusing to grant the request of the European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy to recruit the applicant by appointing her and assigning her as an official to the vacant post COM/2011/218;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 June 2012 rejecting in part the appeal against the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 November 2011 refusing to grant the request of the Directorate General for Regional Policy to recruit the applicant as an official;

               —

               Order the European Commission to reconstruct the applicant’s career;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay EUR 14 911,07 in addition to payment of contributions to the pension scheme from October 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay EUR 2 500 in respect of the material and non-material damage caused, subject to increase or reduction during the proceedings, those sums to be increased by late-payment interest calculated from the date on which the sums were due at the rate applied by the ECB to its main refinancing operations plus two points;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-5/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium): Ballast Nedam Groep NV v. Belgian State (Freedom to provide services - Public-works contracts - Registration of contractors - Entity to be taken into account)

text:
C 55/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   State), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                        (First Chamber)                               pending before that court between Ballast Nedam Groep
                                                                      NV and Belgian State Ð on the interpretation of the
                    of 18 December 1997                               judgment of the Court of 14 April 1994 in Case C-389/92
in Case C-309/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Ballast Nedam Groep [1994] ECR I-1289 Ð the Court
the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di              (Third Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Tivoli): Daniele Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di                   Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P.
           Guidonia, Presidente Regione Lazio (1)                     Puissochet (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
                                                                      Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
(Agriculture Ð Nature and archaeological park Ð                       a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
Economic activity Ð Protection of fundamental rights Ð
              Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                          (98/C 55/21)                                Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning
                                                                      the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       in respect of public works contracts and on the award of
                                                                      public works contracts to contractors acting through
                                                                      agencies or branches and Council Directive 71/305/EEC
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      for the award of public works contracts are to be
                                                                      interpreted as meaning that the authority competent to
In Case C-309/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            decide on an application for registration submitted by a
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma,              dominant legal person of a group is under an obligation,
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome District Magistrates'              where it is established that that person actually has
Court, Tivoli Division), for a preliminary ruling in the              available to it the resources of the companies belonging to
proceedings pending before that court between Daniele                 the group that are necessary to carry out the contracts, to
Annibaldi and Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia,                         take account of the references of those companies in
Presidente Regione Lazio Ð on the interpretation of                   assessing the suitability of the legal person concerned, in
Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general                     accordance with the criteria mentioned in Articles 23 to
principles of Community law Ð the Court (First                        28 of Directive 71/305/EEC.
Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the First Chamber, P. Jann and
L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,              (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in
which it has ruled:
The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
                                                                      in Case C-37/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Belgian Hof van Cassatie): Belgian State v. Ghent Coal
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Terminal NV (1)
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                      (Value added tax Ð Sixth VAT Directive Ð Article 17 Ð
                    of 18 December 1997                                      Right to deduct Ð Adjustment of deductions)
in Case C-5/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (98/C 55/23)
the Raad van State, Belgium): Ballast Nedam Groep NV
                      v. Belgian State (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Public-works contracts Ð                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Registration of contractors Ð Entity to be taken into
                            account)
                          (98/C 55/22)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        In Case C-37/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                     of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie
                                                                      (Court of Cassation), for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-5/97: reference to the Court under Article 177              proceedings pending before that court between Belgian
of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State (Council of                  State and Ghent Coal Terminal NV Ð on the


title: Case T-574/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Fishing — Conservation of fishery resources — Reconstitution of the stocks of bluefin tuna — Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners — Unusual loss)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2012 — Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens and Others v Commission
   (Case T-574/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Fishing - Conservation of fishery resources - Reconstitution of the stocks of bluefin tuna - Emergency measures prohibiting fishing by purse seiners - Unusual loss)
   2012/C 399/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Syndicat des thoniers méditerranéens (Marseille, France); Marc Carreno (Sète, France); Jean-Louis Donnarel (Lourmarin, France); Jean-François Flores (Sète); Gérald Lubrano (Balaruc-les-Bains, France); Hervé Marin (Balaruc-le-Vieux, France); Nicolas Marin (Frontignan, France); Sébastien Marin (Bouzigues, France); Jean-Marc Penniello (Collioure, France); Serge Antoine José Perez (Sorède, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer); Jean-Luc Buono (Agde, France); Gérard Buono (Agde); Roger Louis Paul Del Ponte (Balaruc-les-Bains); Serge Antoine Di Rocco (Frontignan); Jean Gérald Lubrano (Balaruc-les-Bains); Jean Lubrano (Port-Vendres, France); Jean Lucien Lubrano (Saleilles, France); Fabrice Marin (Frontignan) and Robert Marin (Balaruc-les-Bains) (represented initially by: C. Bonnefoi, and subsequently by: A. Arnaud and P.-O. Koubi-Flotte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-524/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2011 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS — Absolute ground for refusal — Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2011 — Meredith v OHIM (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)
   (Case T-524/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS - Absolute ground for refusal - Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 305/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Meredith Corp. (Des Moines, United States of America) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Hardcastle, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 (Case R 517/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Meredith Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-198/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/26

         Action brought on 4 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-198/05)
   (2005/C 182/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Wils and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 (1) in that all the categories of establishments which are accessible to the public within the meaning of the directive are exempt from public lending right.

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission notes that Article 69(1)(b) of Law No 633/41 exempts all State book and record libraries from lending right in so far as it lays down that lending is not subject to any authorisation or remuneration after at least 18 months from the first act of the distribution period, or after at least 24 months from the realisation of those works if the right of distribution is not exercised.
   The Commission submits that in exempting all State book and record libraries from the payment of remuneration, that article of Law No 633/41 simultaneously infringes Article 5(2) and Article 5(3) of Directive 92/100/EEC. By not complying with the conditions for the grant of a derogation from exclusive lending right for public institutions, that provision also infringes Article 1 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61 of 27.11.1992.


title: Case C-676/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR
   (Case C-676/16)
   (2017/C 086/18)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o.

      Defendant: Ministerstvo financí ČR

      Question referred

   Do persons who, by way of their business activity, sell companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed for the purposes of sale (‘ready-made companies’), whose sale is realised by the transfer of a holding in the subsidiary company which they are selling, fall within the scope of Article 2(1), point 3(c) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing in conjunction with Article 3(7)(a) thereof?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.


title: Case C-508/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner (Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European enforcement order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as an enforcement order — Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/14

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner
   (Case C-508/12) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European enforcement order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as an enforcement order - Situation in which the judgment was given in the Member State of the creditor in a dispute between two persons not engaged in commercial or professional activities)
   2014/C 45/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walter Vapenik

      Defendant: Josef Thurner

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15) — Conditions for certification as an enforcement order in a decision relating to an uncontested claim — Situation in which the decision has been delivered in the creditor’s Member State in a dispute between two consumers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to contracts concluded between two persons who are not engaged in commercial or professional activities.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Case C-610/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Evidence — Sworn statement — Burden of proof — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15, 51 and 76 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 40(5))

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-610/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Evidence - Sworn statement - Burden of proof - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15, 51 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 40(5))
   2013/C 344/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it granted the application for revocation of the CENTROTHERM mark — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM);

               2.

               Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4);

               3.

               Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-320/02: Action brought on 22 October 2002 by Monika Esch-Leonhardt, Tillmann Frommhold and Emmanuel Larue against the European Central Bank

text:
C 323/38                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.12.2002
In support of their application, the applicants allege infringe-             on 22 October 2002 by Monika Esch-Leonhardt, Frankfurt
ment of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 3286/94 (EC). According                (Germany), Tillmann Frommhold, Karben (Germany), and
to the applicants, the Commission misassessed the definition                 Emmanuel Larue, Frankfurt (Germany), represented by B. Kart-
of ‘obstacle to trade’.                                                      haus, C. Roth and T. Raab-Rhein (lawyers), with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim, next, that that misassessment necessarily
implies infringement of Article 2(4) of Regulation No 3286/
94 (EC) as regards assessment of the adverse trade effects                   The applicants claims that the Court should:
arising from the United States measures.
                                                                             1.    declare the inclusion of the Director of Personnel’s letter
The applicants take the view, moreover, that the Commission                        of 4 December 2001 in the applicants’ personal files to
infringed, in its examination of the adverse trade effects, the                    be of no legal effect;
obligation to have regard to the provisions, principles or
practice which govern the right of action under relevant
international rules, contained in Article 10(5) of Regulation                2.    in the alternative, declare void the defendant’s refusal to
                                                                                remove the Director of Personnel’s letter of 4 December
No 3286/94 (EC).
                                                                                2001 from the applicants’ personal files;
The applicants further claim that the Commission, when                       3.    declare void the defendant’s refusal to number the pages
deciding to terminate the procedure, restricted the concept of                     of the personal files in sequence;
interests of the Community to the interests of the complainant
alone, contrary to Article 10 of Regulation No 3286/94 (EC).
                                                                             4.    order the defendant to pay the applicants damages of
                                                                                EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-pecuniary loss;
The applicants also allege breach of the obligation to provide
a statement of reasons, both as regards the analysis of the
obstacles to trade and the interests of the Community,                       5.    as an alternative to claims 1 to 3, order the defendant to
infringement of Article 2(4) and Article 11(1) of Regulation                       remove the Director of Personnel’s letter of 4 December
No 3286/94 (EC) and a manifest error of assessment of                              2001 from the personal files;
the facts. Finally, the applicants allege infringement by the
Commission of the rights of the defence and breach of the
duty to exercise due care.                                                   6.    order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994
     laying down Community procedures in the field of the common
     commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Com-
     munity’s rights under international trade rules.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The applicants, employees of the European Central Bank,
                                                                             complain that a document sent to them by the defendant
                                                                             warning them to refrain in the future from circulating infor-
                                                                             mation about the union via the defendant’s internal e-mail
                                                                             system was included in their respective personal files.
Action brought on 22 October 2002 by Monika Esch-
Leonhardt, Tillmann Frommhold and Emmanuel Larue
               against the European Central Bank
                                                                             The applicants regard the warning itself, and in particular the
                          (Case T-320/02)                                    storage thereof, as a breach of their right to determine what
                                                                             information is placed on the file and an infringement of their
                                                                             right to carry out activities connected with the union. In
                          (2002/C 323/63)                                    addition, the measure amounts to discrimination on account
                                                                             of their union activities.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             The applicants also submit that their rights have been infringed
                                                                             in that the pages of their personal files have not been numbered
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                      in sequence, with the result that it is not possible to check
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               which documents are placed on, or removed from, those files.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 323/39
That, like the storage of data giving information about                     Pleas and main arguments
membership of the union, infringes the provisions of Regu-
lation (EC) No 45/2001 ( 1).
                                                                            The applicants benefit from fiscal arrangements and the
( 1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of           tonnage charge introduced by the Netherlands in favour of,
     the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
                                                                            inter alia, vessels intended for towing and assistance at sea. In
     with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
     institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
                                                                            the contested decision the Commission considers that these
     (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).                                                   matters constitute new State aid for tugboat activities princi-
                                                                            pally carried on in and around the harbours of the Community
                                                                            and on inland waterways within the Community and not
                                                                            principally at sea. The Commission is at the same time seeking
                                                                            recovery by the Netherlands authority of that aid.
                                                                            The applicants submit that the Commission is in breach of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 ( 1) by classifying the
                                                                            matters concerned as new State aid. According to the appli-
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Kotug Inter-                           cants the provision made in regard to those matters constitutes
national BV, Sleepdienst Adriaan Kooren BV and K&K                          existing State aid authorised by the Commission.
International BV against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                           (Case T-326/02)                                  Thus, there is no question of a change in the existing aid.
                                                                            According to the Commission, the interpretation of the
                                                                            Netherlands law has changed over the years. Under it tugboats
                          (2002/C 323/64)                                   were eligible for aid on the basis of technical criteria relating
                                                                            to the vessels rather than on the basis of the place where the
                                                                            activities are carried on. According to the applicants, that was
                                                                            however clear from the legislation notified by the Netherlands
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            authorities under which a technical and qualitative criterion is
                                                                            applied rather than a geographical one. That interpretation of
                                                                            the provision made in regard to the grant of the aid have
                                                                            accordingly not changed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Kotug International BV,
Sleepdienst Adriaan Kooren BV and K&K International BV,                     The applicants further allege that the Commission did not
established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,                  follow the correct procedure. According to the applicants, the
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  Commission, upon receipt of supplementary information, did
                                                                            not issue a recommendation for the adoption of appropriate
                                                                            measures. Nor did the Commission review the aid under
                                                                            Article 9 of Regulation No 659/1999. Nor, the applicants
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:               submit, are the requirements of that article satisfied since there
                                                                            is no question of incorrect information. Moreover, according
                                                                            to the applicants, the Commission failed to demonstrate that
1.     Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                            the provision made for the matters concerned is not covered
       19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
                                                                            by the aid measures approved by it previously.
       favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
       harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
2.     In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
       mission’s contested decision in which the Commission                 Accordingly, the applicants submit that the contested decision
       requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-             infringes Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty. According to the
       ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients             applicants the Commission is acting incorrectly in declaring
       — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September                 the matters concerned incompatible with the common market.
       1990;                                                                The applicants allege that towing services provided by sea
                                                                            tugboats to sea-going vessels, irrespective of where those
                                                                            activities are carried on, come within the scope of the
3.     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Community guidelines on State aid for maritime transport ( 2).


title: Case T-212/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Madaus/OHIM — Indena (ECHINAMID)
   (Case T-212/13)
   2013/C 178/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Madaus GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and A. Späth, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Overturn the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2013 (Case R 27/2012-1);

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

               —

               In the event that Indena S.p.A. joins in the appeal as an intervening party, order the intervening party to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECHINAMID’ for goods in class 1 — Community trade mark application No 6 830 103

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Greek word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-640/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark RELY-ABLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Ground included for sake of completeness)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Boehringer Ingelheim International v OHIM (RELY-ABLE)
   (Case T-640/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark RELY-ABLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Ground included for sake of completeness)
   2013/C 171/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and C. Steudtner, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2011 (Case R 756/2011-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign RELY-ABLE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-305/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/26

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-305/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (1) and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2005/47/EC had to be transposed expired on 26 July 2008. On the date on which the present action was brought, however, the defendant had not yet adopted all necessary transposition measures or, in any event, had not communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 1998 in Case C-283/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/73/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
5.12.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/3
experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ L 358,                Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
18.12.1986, p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                      15 October 1998, in which it:
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Judges, F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                    1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in                    period all the measures necessary to comply with
which it:                                                                 Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                          of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative provisions of the
1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed                    Member States relating to the protection of animals
     period all the measures necessary to comply with                     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
     Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,                    obligations under that directive.
     regulations and administrative provisions of the
     Member States relating to the protection of animals
     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                     in Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (1)
                      of 15 October 1998
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
       in Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                  Directive 93/40/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                          prescribed period)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                       (98/C 378/06)
Directive 92/73/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       prescribed period)
                         (98/C 378/05)                                               (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre
In Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                         and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. French Republic
Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre and               (Agent: Kareen Rispal-Bellinger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð
Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:              Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
Jan Devadder) Ð Application for a declaration that, by               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative            to comply with Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                1993 amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC
92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 214,
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation             24.8.1993, p. 31), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
or administrative action relating to medicinal products              its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, Ð
and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic                 the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
medicinal products (OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, p. 8), the                 Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
under the EC Treaty and that directive Ð the Court (Sixth            Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the            has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in which it:


title: Case T-440/03: Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi and 43 other applicants against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 59/31
Action brought on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi                        —     Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
and 43 other applicants against the Council of the Euro-                          expectations, in that, first, the contested provision refers
      pean Union and the Commission of the European                               to customs representation, which is a separate matter
                             Communities                                          from presentation of goods at customs which is the task
                                                                                of the applicants, and, secondly, the monopoly was
                                                                                abolished without any form of transitional measure.
                           (Case T-440/03)
                                                                            —     Breach of the principles of equality and proportionality,
                            (2004/C 59/49)                                        in that the abrupt opening-up of the market in presen-
                                                                                tation of goods at customs has resulted in a draconian
                                                                                reduction in prices, which ships brokers, who are handi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                               capped by the restrictive rules under which they operate,
                                                                                cannot resist, in the absence of any transitional measures.
                                                                            Lastly, the applicants allege breach of the right to property, as
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                 laid down in the First Protocol to the European Convention on
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          Human Rights.
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 29 December 2003 by Jean Arizmendi and 43 other
applicants, all residing in France, represented by Jean-François            (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
Péricaud and Philippe Péricaud, lawyers.                                        establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
1.     Order the Council of the European Union and the
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay to each applicant the compensation
       representing the loss suffered, together with interest at            Action brought on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
       the legal rate from the date the application was lodged;             Léon Van Parys, N.V. Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
                                                                            Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy
                                                                                S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
2.     Order the Council of the European Union and the                                                  Communities
       Commission of the European Communities jointly and
       severally to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-441/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/50)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The subject matter of the present action is the loss allegedly
suffered by the applicants, who are French ship brokers, as a
result of the abolition in French law, under Law 2001-43 of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
16 January 2001, of the monopoly traditionally held by French               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ship brokers. This abolition occurred by reason of Article 5                European Communities on 31 December 2003 by N.V. Firma
of the Community Customs Code (1), as applied by the                        Léon Van Parys, established in Antwerp (Belgium), N.V. Pacific
Commission, when steps were taken following infringement                    Fruit Company, established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
proceedings against the French Republic (letter of formal                   Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), and
notice of 12 February 1997 and reasoned opinion of 3 Decem-                 Pacific Fruit Company Italy S.p.A., established in Rome (Italy),
ber 1997) concerning the monopoly held by ship brokers,                     represented by P. Vlaemminck and J. Holmens.
under French law, in respect of representation for performing
the acts and formalities laid down by customs rules.
                                                                            The applicants claim that the Court should:
In support of their claims, the applicants contend that the                 1.    order the defendant to pay compensation under
abolition of the monopoly is an act for which the Commission                      Article 235 EC in conjunction with Article 288 EC for
is liable for the following reasons:                                              the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the
                                                                                unlawful measures introduced by Commission Regulation
—      Breach of Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45                      No 2362/98, including default interest of 8 % to be paid
       EC), in that ship brokers, in implementing customs                         on all amounts with effect from the date on which the
       legislation, participate in the exercise of official authority.            damage was caused;


title: Case C-350/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Landessozialgericht (Germany), lodged on 30 July 2007 — Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Landessozialgericht (Germany), lodged on 30 July 2007 — Kattner Stahlbau GmbH v Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft
   (Case C-350/07)
   (2007/C 269/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sächsisches Landessozialgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kattner Stahlbau GmbH

      Defendants: Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the respondent Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?

               2.

               Does the compulsory affiliation of the appellant to the respondent infringe Community law?


title: Case C-159/16: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 6 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings brought by „Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Riga’ VAS, intervener: Konkurences padome

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/22

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 6 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings brought by „Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Riga’ VAS, intervener: Konkurences padome
   (Case C-159/16) (1)

   (2017/C 086/27)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-482/12: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Peter Macinský, Eva Macinská v Getfin s.r.o., Financreal s.r.o.

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 7 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Peter Macinský, Eva Macinská v Getfin s.r.o., Financreal s.r.o.
   (Case C-482/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/29
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case T-63/13: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (AYUR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AYUR — Earlier Benelux word marks AYUS — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — Three-N-Products v OHIM — Munindra (AYUR)
   (Case T-63/13) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AYUR - Earlier Benelux word marks AYUS - Likelihood of confusion - Articles 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 377/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2012 (Case R 2296/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Munindra Holding BV and Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Three-N-Products Private Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 July 2003 in Case C-297/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal): Sicilcassa Spa v IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci and Others, and between Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci and Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Amministrazione straordinaria della Holding personale Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA (State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — New aid — Absence of prior notification — Aid incompatible with the common market — Withdrawal of aid — Transitional arrangements maintaining the effect of the withdrawn aid)

text:
29.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 289/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 July 2003
                        of 16 October 2003                                   in Case C-297/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal):
                                                                             Sicilcassa Spa v IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano
in Case C-30/03: Commission of the European Communi-                         Restivo Graci and Others, and between Francesco Gaet-
ties v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária                       ano Restivo Graci and Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA,
                               (ITEC) (1)                                    Amministrazione straordinaria della Holding personale
                                                                                Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA (1)
                                                                             (State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — New aid —
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                             Absence of prior notification — Aid incompatible with the
    Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)
                                                                             common market — Withdrawal of aid — Transitional
                                                                              arrangements maintaining the effect of the withdrawn aid)
                          (2003/C 289/20)                                                               (2003/C 289/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-297/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             proceedings pending before that court between Sicilcassa Spa
                                                                             and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci
In Case C-30/03, Commission of the European Communities                      and Others, and between Francesco Gaetano Restivo Graci and
(Agents: G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito) v Instituto Tecnoló-               Others and IRA Costruzioni SpA, Amministrazione straordina-
gico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC), a private establishment               ria della Holding personale Graci Gaetano, Sicilcassa SpA on the
established in Lisbon (Portugal): Application by the Com-                    interpretation of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the Court (Fifth
mission under Article 238 EC to recover EUR 26 105,97                        Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of
advanced by it to the defendant in relation to performance of                the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
Contract No PRO 036, together with default interest, the Court               S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
(Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                 R. Grass, Registrar, the national court having been informed
the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-                     that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              pursuant to Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the persons
has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                        referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice
                                                                             having been invited to submit any observations they may have
                                                                             on that proposal, has made an order on 24 July 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
      to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the
      sum of EUR 26 105,97, together with default interest at the            1.    Transitional rules such as those laid down by Article 106 of
      rate prescribed by Luxembourg law, calculated in accordance                  Legislative Decree No 270/99 of 8 July 1999 introducing new
      with the provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulations of 21 Janu-               rules on the special administration of large insolvent firms, which
      ary and 22 December 2000, 21 January 2002 and 24 January                     maintain the effects of a new State aid scheme which has not been
      2003, until the debt is paid in full;                                        notified to the Commission and has been declared incompatible
                                                                                with Community law, in themselves constitute a new State aid
                                                                                scheme within the meaning of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.
2.    Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
      to pay the costs.                                                      2.    The questions asking for the Court’s assessment of the compati-
                                                                                bility with the common market of transitional rules such as
                                                                                those laid down by Article 106 of Legislative Decree No 270/
                                                                                99 are inadmissible.
(1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Case T-260/12: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/13

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-260/12) (1)

   2012/C 373/26
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case C-337/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Georg Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-337/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Georg Neidel

      Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) also apply to the employment relationships of public servants?

               2.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC also cover entitlements to annual leave where national law provides for such an entitlement of more than four weeks?

               3.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC also apply to entitlements to leave of absence granted under national law in addition to annual leave in compensation for work performed on public holidays owing to the irregular distribution of working time?

               4.

               Can a public servant who has retired base an entitlement to payment in lieu of annual leave directly on Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC if he has been prevented from working by sickness and has not therefore been able to take leave in the form of leave of absence from work?

               5.

               Can such an entitlement to payment in lieu be at least partly precluded by the premature forfeiture of entitlement to leave prescribed in national law?

               6.

               Does the scale of the entitlement to payment in lieu based on Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC extend only to the minimum leave of four weeks guaranteed by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, or does the entitlement to a payment in lieu also extend to the additional leave entitlements for which national law provides? Do those extended leave entitlements also include entitlements to leave of absence arising solely from a particular distribution of working time?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-289/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova, Italy): Eridania SpA v Azienda Agricola San luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1996/1997 — Regionalisation — Deficit zones — Classification of Italy — Validity of Regulations Nos 1580/96 and 1785/81)

text:
C 302/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.10.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 6 July 2000                                                              of 6 July 2000
in Case C-289/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di Pace di Genova, Italy): Eridania SpA v                      in Case C-356/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
     Azienda Agricola San luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (1)                     by the Finanzgericht München): Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                                Wiedergeltingen eG v Hauptzollamt Lindau (1)
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1996/1997 —
Regionalisation — Deficit zones — Classification of Italy                  (Additional levy on milk — Annual statement of quantities
    — Validity of Regulations Nos 1580/96 and 1785/81)                     of milk delivered to purchaser — Late communication —
                                                                           Penalty — Validity of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 536/93)
                          (2000/C 302/17)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/18)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-289/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by Giudice di Pace di
Genova (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Eridania SpA and Azienda                 In Case C-356/97, Reference to the Court under Article 177
Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj — on the validity of                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Finanzgericht
Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July              München (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
1996 fixing, for the 1996/97 marketing year, the derived                   ings pending before that court between Molkereigenossen-
intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for            schaft Wiedergeltingen eG and Hauptzollamt Lindau — on
raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the                    the validity of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of
amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1996 L 206,                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993
p. 9) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June                laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the                      levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12) — the
sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 1), as amended by Council                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995                       of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
L 110, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of:                      Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges;
P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,             A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate                  trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000,
General J. Mischo; Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal               in which it ruled:
Administrator, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                           The second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on
Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor of        the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products is
such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation                invalid in that it imposes on the purchaser, in the event of failure to
(EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 fixing, for the 1996/1997                  observe the time-limit referred to in the first subparagraph of
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the       Article 3(2), a financial penalty equal to the amount of the additional
intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B           levy on milk due for a 0,1 % overrun on the quantities of milk and
beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs and of              milk equivalent delivered by producers, without making any provision
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the                 for the length of time by which the time-limit is exceeded to be taken
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.                    into account.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.