title: Case C-360/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) v Netlog NV (Information society — Copyright — Internet — Hosting service provider — Processing of information stored on an online social networking platform — Introducing a system for filtering that information in order to prevent files being made available which infringe copyright — No general obligation to monitor stored information)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) v Netlog NV
   (Case C-360/10) (1)

   (Information society - Copyright - Internet - Hosting service provider - Processing of information stored on an online social networking platform - Introducing a system for filtering that information in order to prevent files being made available which infringe copyright - No general obligation to monitor stored information)
   2012/C 98/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam)

      Defendant: Netlog NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Directives: — 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), — 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45), — 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), — 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1), — 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37), — Processing of data conveyed over the Internet — Introduction by an online hosting service provider of a system for filtering electronic communications, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, in order to identify consumers deemed to use files infringing a copyright or related right — Application of its own motion by the national court of the principle of proportionality — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right to respect for private life — Right to freedom of expression

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directives:

               —

               2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce);

               —

               2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society; and

               —

               2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

         read together and construed in the light of the requirements stemming from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, must be interpreted as precluding a national court from issuing an injunction against a hosting service provider which requires it to install a system for filtering:

               —

               information which is stored on its servers by its service users;

               —

               which applies indiscriminately to all of those users;

               —

               as a preventative measure;

               —

               exclusively at its expense; and

               —

               for an unlimited period,

         which is capable of identifying electronic files containing musical, cinematographic or audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant for the injunction claims to hold intellectual property rights, with a view to preventing those works from being made available to the public in breach of copyright.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-622/11 P: Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Cervelli v Commission (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Request for review — New facts — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/34

         Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Cervelli v Commission
   (Case T-622/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Request for review - New facts - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 366/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Francesca Cervelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2011 in Case F-98/10 Cervelli v Commission, and seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Francesca Cervelli shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


23.12.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 372/9
       Removal from the register of Case C-418/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-419/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/18)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/19)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-418/99: Commission of the European           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     the register of Case C-419/99: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-37/05: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Consents granted without assessment)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-37/05: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Consents granted without assessment)
   (2006/C 60/17)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-37/05, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. van Beek, assisted by F. Louis and A. Capobianco, avocats) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. White) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 January 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kūris, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to correctly transpose Articles 2(1) and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-309/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 by order of that Court of 8 July 2003 in the case of Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de Empleo (Inem)

text:
20.9.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 226/9
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by the Italian Republic                   1.   Where the period for calculation of the basis of contribu-
    against Commission of the European Communities                            tion for unemployment benefit coincided with exercise of
                                                                              the right to reduced working hours and salary in order to
                        (Case C-307/03)                                       care for a child, does the correct transposition of clause 2
                                                                              (8) of the framework agreement contained in Directive
                        (2003/C 226/13)                                       96/34 (1) into the domestic law of Member States, and
                                                                              specifically into Spanish law, require those States to adopt
An action against the Commission of the European                              in social security legislation relating specifically to unem-
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    ployment benefit measures to offset the effect of the lower
European Communities on 18 July 2003 by the Italian                           contribution to the social security scheme as a result of the
Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent,                   reduced salary received by a worker exercising that right,
assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.                          so as not to cause the worker's unemployment benefit to
                                                                              be reduced?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         2.   Should the preceding question be answered affirmatively,
—     Annul the financial correction imposed against Italy by
      Commission Decision No C(2003) 1539 final of 15 May
      2003.                                                                   Can failure to comply with the duty under clause 2(8) of
                                                                              the framework agreement contained in Directive 96/34,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               once the time-limit established in Article 2 of the Directive
                                                                              for its transposition has expired, be remedied directly by
First, the applicant claims that the spot checks were of poor                 the national court in the proceedings in which these
quality: it disagrees with the findings of the Commission's                   preliminary questions are raised, in the decision adopted
officials as regards the procedure and effectiveness of the                   to determine those proceedings?
checks carried out.
As regards failure to repay aid in respect of non-eligible areas,
the applicant maintains that financial corrections may not be            (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
made where the Member State has kept to measures agreed                      agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
with the Commission and improved checking procedures, as                     ETUC (OJ L 145 of 19.6.1996, p. 4).
admitted by the Commission and as shown by the fact that it is
sought to confer retroactive effectiveness to the scope of check-
ing procedures which have been gradually improved.
Finally, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is
vitiated by misapplication of Article 9(3) of Regulation                 Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the
No 3887/92 (1) (areas to be used for calculation of the aid).                European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-313/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/15)
(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2003
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by M.-J. Jonczy, acting as Agent.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social No 33 by order of that Court of 8 July 2003 in the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
case of Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de
                         Empleo (Inem)                                   —     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
                        (Case C-309/03)                                        Directive 1999/63/EC (1) of 21 June 1999 concerning the
                                                                               Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers
                        (2003/C 226/14)                                        concluded by the European Community Shipowners"
                                                                               Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) — Annex:
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social                      European Agreement on the organisation of working time of
(Social Court) No 33 of 8 July 2003, received at the Court                     seafarers, or in any event, by failing to communicate any
Registry on 23 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de Empleo                      failed to satisfy its obligations under Article 3(1) of that
(Inem) on the following questions:                                             directive;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Vacancy notice - Annulment of the procedure in progress - Notice of competition - Post reserved for nationals of new Member States - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty - Misuse of powers - Action for damages)

text:
No C 131 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26 . 4 . 97
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-l 78/95 and T-l 79/95 : Santo Picciolo
                        of 6 March 1997
                                                                      and Giuseppe Caló v. Committee of the Regions of the
in Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96: Armel de Kerros                                          European Union (')
and Veronique Kohn-Bergé v. Commission of the                         (Officials — New post with the Committee of the Regions
                   European Communities ( ] )                         — Vacancy Notice — Rejection of candidatures —
                                                                      Application for annulment — Delay in communicating the
(Officials — Recruitment — Admission to internal                      rejection decisions — Failure to state reasons — Equality
competitions — Notice of competition — Conditions for                         of treatment — Manifest error of assessment)
     taking part — Condition relating to length of service)
                                                                                { 97/C 131 /35 )
                          ( 97/C 131 /34
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)                       In Joined Cases T-178/95 and T-179/95 : Santo Picciolo, an
                                                                      official of the European Parliament, residing at Itzig
                                                                      ( Luxembourg) and Giuseppe Caló, residing in
                                                                      Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry De
In Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96 Armel de Kerros,                  maseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
temporary agent of the Commission of the European                     an address for. service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Communities, residing at Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ), and                Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against
Veronique Kohn-Bergé, temporary agent of the                          Committee of the Regions of the European Union ( Agent:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                   Dominique Lagasse ) — application for, first, the
Florange ( France ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry          annulment of the decisions of the Committee of the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Regions of 5 December 1994 rejecting the applicants'
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    candidatures for the post of Director at the Directorate of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, v. the                    Administration and Registry of the Committee of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Case                  Regions following the publication of vacancy notice CdR/
T-40/96 : Julian Currall; Case T-55/96 : Ana Maria Alves              1 /94 and, secondly, annulment of the decision the same
Vieira ) — application, in Case T-40/96, for annulment of             day appointing Mr M. to that post — the Court of First
the decision of the selection board in internal competition           Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. García-
COM/T/B/96 and, in Case T-55/96, for annulment of the                 Valdecasas, President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M.
decision of the selection board in internal competition               Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator for the
COM/T/C/96, both refusing to admit the applicants to the              Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in
tests in the abovementioned competitions on the ground                which it :
that they did not fulfil the condition that they should have
completed three years uninterrupted service with the                   1 . dismisses the applications;
European Communities in the capacity of agent, as
referred to in the rules applicable to other servants of the          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Communities — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, and V.            (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; M. A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 6 March 1997, in which it:
 1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit Armel de                                       of 18 March 1997
       Kerros to the tests in that competition;                        in Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Officials — Vacancy notice — Annulment of the
 2 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal           procedure in progress — Notice of competition — Post
       competition COM/T/C/96 refusing to admit Veronique              reserved for nationals of new Member States — Action for
       Kohn-Bergé to the tests in that competition;                    annulment — Admissibility — Articles 4 and 29 of the
                                                                       Staff Regulations — Principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty —
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                     Misuse of powers — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /36 )
 O OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 , and OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 4 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 131 / 15
Dalheim ( Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by                  of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,
Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address               Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter,              Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
180 Route de Longwy, against Commission of the                        which it :
European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
Julian Currall and Alberto dal Ferro) — application, first,           1 . dismisses the application;
for annulment of the Commission's decision cancelling the
procedure under vacancy notice COM/116/94, and, in so
far as may be necessary, of its decision to reserve the post          2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs in their
forming the subject-matter of that vacancy notice for                       entirety.
nationals of new Member States and to publish notice of
open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ) and                 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
of its decision of 14 December 1995 rejecting the
applicant's complaint of 14 July 1995 , and, secondly, for
an order requiring the Commission to pay compensation
for the non-material harm suffered — the Court of First
Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-
Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:                                                  ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 March 1997
 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it             in Case T-21/96 : Antonio Giannmi v. Commission of the
     seeks annulment of the decision of the Commission to                                 European Communities (')
     publish notice of open competition COM/A/929 (Head
     of Unit V.F.3);                                                   (Officials — Appointment — Vacancy Notice — Interests
                                                                                of the service)
2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;                                            ( 97/C 131 /38 )
 3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
 H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .                                       In Case T-21 /96 : Antonio Giannini, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Marc Dallemagne and Carlo
                                                                       Locchi, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jeannot Biver,
                                                                       3 Rue de la Loge, against the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Julian Currall ) — application for, first, annulment of the
                       of 19 March 1997                                decisions appointing Mr X as head of the Unit
                                                                       'Negotiations and Management of Agreements on Textiles;
 in Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,               footwear; various' and rejecting the applicant's
     SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                candidature for that post, and, secondly, damages in
  (Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance in                respect of the material and non-material loss which the
  the financing of vocational training measures — New                  applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those
 decision following a judgment of the Court of Justice —               decisions — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
 Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Prohibition               composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
           of reformatio in pejus — Reasonable time)                   Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 1997, in
                           ( 97/C 131 /37)                             which it :
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      1 . annuls the Commission 's decisions appointing Mr X as
                                                                             head of the Unit 'Negotiations and Management of
  In Case T-73/95 : Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira,                    Agreements on Textiles; footwear; various ' following
  SA, established at Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr                    the publication of Vacancy Notice COM/151 /94, and
 Joaquim Marques de Ascensão, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                     rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post;
  address for service at the office of Alberto de Sousa, União
  de Bancos Portugueses SA, 12 Rue de la Grève, against                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana
  Maria Alves Vieira and Günter Wilms ) — application for
  the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(94)1410/               3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
  9 of 12 July 1994, notified to the applicant on
  28 December 1994, concerning financial assistance from                (') OJ No C 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  the European Social Fund for vocational training measures
  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme — Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/9
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by                                        (Sixth Chamber)
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that                                       of 8 May 2003
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
                                                                             in Case C-171/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne Gewerkschafter-
                                                                                Innen/UG’ (1)
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for
                                                                             workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                             Association Council — Prohibition of discrimination as
                                                                             regards conditions of work — Direct effect — Scope —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Legislation of a Member State excluding Turkish workers
                                                                                from eligibility for election to a chamber of workers)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/15)
                            of 8 May 2003
in Case C-122/01 P: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Com-                                                (Language of the case: German)
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Bananas — Common organisation of the markets                                          in the European Court Reports)
— Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
    Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
                           (2003/C 146/14)
                                                                             In Case C-171/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                    (Language of the case: German)                           ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’, also represented: Bundesmi-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           nister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit, Kammer für Arbeiter und
                                                                             Angestellte für Vorarlberg, Wählergruppe ‘Vorarlberger Arbei-
                                                                             ter- und Angestelltenbund (ÖAAB) — AK-Präsident Josef Fink’,
                                                                             Wählergruppe ‘FSG — Walter Gelbmann — mit euch ins
In Case C-122/01 P, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                    nächste Jahrtausend/Liste 2’, Wählergruppe ‘Freiheitliche und
Hambourg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtwanwalt:                   parteifreie Arbeitnehmer Vorarlberg — FPÖ’, Wählergruppe
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                ‘Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock’, and Wählergruppe ‘NBZ —
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February                       Neue Bewegung für die Zukunft’, on the interpretation of
2001 in Case T-1/99 T. Port v Commission [2001] ECR II-                      Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on
465, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the other              the development of the Association, adopted by the Associ-
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                   ation Council established by the Association Agreement
Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), the                    between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                       of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:                                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the appeal.
                                                                             Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
2.    Orders T. Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
                                                                             development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council
                                                                             established by the Association Agreement between the European
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                   Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as:
                                                                             —     having direct effect in the Member States, and


title: Removal from the register of Case T-18/94

text:
 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-210/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 3 May 2012 — Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), lodged on 3 May 2012 — Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd
   (Case C-210/12)
   2012/C 209/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Party to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (1) to be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for a plant protection product if a valid marketing authorisation was granted in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is it necessary under Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 for the marketing authorisation to be still in force at the time of application for the certificate?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
               Is Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 to be interpreted as meaning that an application can be lodged even before the period mentioned in that provision starts to run?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.


title: Case T-171/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a turnbuckle) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trademark — Shape of a turnbuckle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/36

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a turnbuckle)
      (Case T-171/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trademark - Shape of a turnbuckle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/43)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 1209/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of a turnbuckle as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the application;

                  2.

                  Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 3 June 1995 by Aéroports de Paris (ADP) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-128/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208 /35
       Communities, such aid being, moreover, a prerequisite           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
       for their performance .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the substance, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law :                                               The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                       T-126/95 .
( a ) Failure to state reasons : the contested decision does not
       state the reasons on which it is based, as required by
       Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
( b) Infringement of Article 155 of the EC Treaty: by failing
       to act in the present case , the Commission did not             Action brought on 3 June 1995 by Aeroports de Paris (ADP)
       discharge its duty under Article 155 of the Treaty to             against the Commission of the European Communities
       ensure that Greece applied Community law.
                                                                                ( Case T-l 28/95 )
(c ) Error in law or manifest error of assessment: the                                          ( 95/C 208/73 )
       Commission has committed either an error in law, if it
       considered that there was no reason to take further                            (Language of the case: French)
       steps against Greece on the ground that Community
       law had not been infringed, or a manifest error of
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
       assessment, if it considered that the infringements in          Communities was brought before the Court of First
       question were not sufficient to justify the initiation of       Instance of the European Communities on 3 June 1995 by
       the infringement procedure against the Hellenic                 Aeroports de Paris (ADP ), whose registered office is in Paris,
       Republic . It can scarcely be disputed , in the applicant's
                                                                       represented by Hugues Calvet of the Paris Bar, with an
       view, that the principle of equal treatment of tenderers        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
       has been infringed in several respects and that the Greek       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
       authorities have manifestly disregarded Articles 30 and
       59 of the EC Treaty and the Council directives on the
       award of public contracts.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the Commission 's decision of 29 March 1995
                                                                           refusing to take further steps against the Hellenic
                                                                           Republic for failure to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           Community law with respect to the award of the public
                                                                           contract for Athens airport,
Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Societe Auxiliaire
                                                                       — in the alternative, declare that the Commission failed to
d'Entreprises ( SAE ) against the Commission of the
                                                                           act,
                       European Communities
                          ( Case T-127/95 )                            — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs
                            ( 95/C 208/72 )                                incurred by ADP in connection with the present
                                                                           application for annulment.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                       The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those in Case
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                     T-126/95 .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1995 by
 Societe Auxiliaire d'Entreprises ( SAE ), whose registered
 office is at Issy-les-Moulineaux ( France ), represented by
 Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Action brought on 9 June 1995 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1995 ,                                          ( Case T-130/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/74 )
 — in the alternative, declare that the Commission
      unlawfully omitted to initiate the procedure for failure
      to fulfil its obligations against the Hellenic Republic, on                     (Language of the case: French)
      account of the serious and repeated infringements of
      Community law committed by the Greek Government in               An action against the Commission of the European
      connection with the procedure for awarding the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
      contract for the new Athens airport,                             Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 1995 by


title: Case T-575/11: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Inaporc v Commission (State aid — Actions undertaken by a national interprofessional committee for pork — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/28

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Inaporc v Commission
   (Case T-575/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Actions undertaken by a national interprofessional committee for pork - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 184/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, Y. Trifounovitch and C. Rexha, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and subsequently by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011 concerning State aid NN 10/2010 — France — Levy intended to finance a national interprofessional committee for pork.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


               29.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/30

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case E-15/15)
   (2016/C 357/10)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 July 2015 from Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein (The Supreme Court, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information referred to therein and in Annex III(A)(a)(11) and (a)(12) and (B)(b)(2) for unit-linked life assurance policies must also be fulfilled in the case where a person who, by a legal transaction, acquires a unit-linked life assurance policy from another person with the consent of the assurer through the transfer of the contract (‘second-hand policies’)?

         In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, the following additional questions are asked:

               2.(a)

               Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that in the event that a unit-linked life assurance policy is acquired by a legal transaction, only general information must be provided to the new policy holder or is the assurance company also required to provide the new policy holder with information specifically regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him, in particular regarding any differences between the investor or risk profiles of the existing policy holder and of the transferee?

         In the event that Question 2(a) is answered in the negative, the following question is asked:

               2.(b)

               Is specific information to be given to the transferee of the contract regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him where the existing policy holder is an undertaking, while the transferee of the contract is a natural person or a consumer?

         In the event that Question 2(b) is answered in the negative, the following question is asked:

               2.(c)

               Is specific information to be given to the transferee of the contract regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him where the transferor of the policy dispensed with information regarding the assurance product in question, for example because he did not disclose to the assurance company the information necessary in order to assess his own risk or investor profile?

               3.

               Are the provisions concerning the assurer’s obligations under Annex III(B)(b)(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance effectively transposed into national law even if national law provides, in Annex 4(II)(2) of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law on insurance supervision), in the case of unit-linked assurance policies, that during the term of an assurance contract information must be provided on the units underlying the assurance policy and the nature of the assets contained therein only where the changes in the information provided stem from ‘amendments of the law’ but not also ‘in the event of a change in the policy conditions’ (Annex III(B)(b)(2) to Directive 2002/83/EC)?


title: Case T-722/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/39

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
   (Case T-722/13)
   2014/C 112/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2013 given in Case R 1960/2012-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 100 750

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked CTM registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked CTM registration in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR.


title: Case F-143/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Dietrich v Parliament (Civil service — Contract staff — Early termination of the contract — Expiry date of the notice period — Suspension of the notice period — New expiry date of the notice period — Act not having an adverse effect — Complaint lodged out of time — Plea of inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/57

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Dietrich v Parliament
      (Case F-143/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Contract staff - Early termination of the contract - Expiry date of the notice period - Suspension of the notice period - New expiry date of the notice period - Act not having an adverse effect - Complaint lodged out of time - Plea of inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/74)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Constant Dietrich (Pfulgriesheim, France) (represented by: A. Fombaron, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Deneys and E. Taneva, Agents)

         Subject-matter of the case

      Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking annulment of the decision terminating early his employment at the European Parliament.

         Operative part of the order

                  1)

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2)

                  Constant Dietrich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 45.


title: Case T-69/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Fiamm SpA and Fiamm Technologies Inc. against the Commission and the Council of the European Communities

text:
C 135/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
— Manifest error of assessment.                                             out their own investigation whilst recognising that the
                                                                            EFTA Surveillance Authority was exclusively competent in
                                                                            this matter, contrary to Article 56 of the EEA Agreement.
                                                                            The documentary evidence obtained on the basis of an
                                                                            illegal decision should have been removed from the
                                                                            proceedings. Second, the Commission should not have
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                             used the documentary evidence upon which it relies as it
Corporation against the Commission of the European                          was obtained on behalf of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
                          Communities                                       which conducted an investigation, the purpose of which
                                                                            was different from that of the Commission proceeding;
                         (Case T-68/00)
                                                                        — in the alternative, the fine should be annulled or, at the
                        (2000/C 135/52)                                     very least, substantially reduced, inter alia, on the ground
                                                                            that the Commission made a factual error in computing
                                                                            the duration of the alleged infringement. The Commission
                                                                            claims that, in view of the EC-Japan voluntary restraint
                  (Language of the case: English)                           agreements, it takes account of the existence of an
                                                                            infringement only from 1990 onwards. The Commission,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   however, made a factual error in that the voluntary
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  restraint agreements expired only on 31 December 1990
European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                       and thus covered the whole year of 1990.
Corporation (Tokyo), represented by Jean-François Bellis and
Kris Van Hove.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999
    relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
    (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it
    concerns the applicant;                                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Fiamm SpA and
                                                                        Fiamm Technologies Inc. against the Commission and the
— annul or, at the very least, reduce the amount of the fine                       Council of the European Communities
    imposed on the applicant; and
                                                                                (Case T-69/00)
— order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 135/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In the decision of 8 December 1999, the Commission imposed
a fine upon the applicant for its alleged participation in an
alleged agreement to refrain from selling seamless standard             An action against the Commission and the Council of the
OCTG and line pipe into Germany, Italy, France and the United           European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Kingdom, contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The                Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 2000 by
applicant puts forward the following three submissions:                 Fiamm SpA and Fiamm Technologies Inc., represented by Ivo
                                                                        Van Bael of the Brussels Bar, Andrea Cevese of the Vicenza Bar
— the Commission has failed to establish the existence of the           and Fabrizio di Gianni of the Rome Bar.
    alleged infringement as far as the applicant is concerned.
    The Commission’s analysis is flawed in that it did not take
    account of the vigorous competition from the applicant in           The applicants claim that the Court should:
    the UK offshore market and the high barriers to entry for
    Japanese supplies of the relevant products to the European          — award them: (i) damages against the Community of LIT
    onshore markets. Furthermore, the documentary evidence                  20835811027.16, or such other sum as the Court may
    relied upon by the Commission fails to support its finding              consider reasonable, final determination to be reserved for
    that the agreement existed and even less that the applicant             as long as the payment obligation lasts; (ii) interest at the
    was a party to it;                                                      Italian statutory rate on 96.5 % of the increased duties paid
                                                                            by the applicants to the US customs administration,
— the challenged decision is illegal as the Commission relied               from the date of actual payment by the applicants until
    on documentary evidence illegally obtained and used. First,             satisfaction; and (iii) interest at 8 % per annum, in accord-
    the decision of 25 November 1994, which authorised the                  ance with Community case-law, in the event of delay in
    on-site investigations of 1 and 2 December 1994, was                    payment of the sum demanded after the judgment award-
    illegal because it empowered Commission officials to carry              ing compensation;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/31
— order the Community to pay the costs;                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— adopt such further measures as might reasonably be found               — annul the decision of ‘the Steering Committee’, as con-
    necessary.                                                               tained in the memorandum of I. Boag of 28 January 2000,
                                                                             to assign the applicant to Brussels, to his DG of origin;
                                                                         — in the alternative, award to the applicant compensation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              for the non-material damage suffered and provisionally
                                                                             quantify the damage, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
The applicants in this case, who are battery manufacturers               — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
exporting to the USA, claim compensation for losses suffered
by them following the adoption by the USA of certain
commercial retaliation measures affecting their industry. On
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
9 September 1997, the Appeals Body of the World Trade
Organisation ruled that various measures laid down under the
Community scheme for importing bananas were contrary to                  The applicant, assigned to the Commission Delegation in
GATT 1994 and the GATS, and called upon the Community                    Romania, contests the decision to reassign him to headquarters
to bring its measures into line with the obligations under those         in Brussels, as part of the rotation exercise for 2000. He claims
trade agreements. Following that ruling, the USA subjected               that the decision in question is flawed in numerous ways, in
imports of stationary batteries to a duty equivalent to 100 %            that it:
of their value, with effect from 3 March 1999.
                                                                         — is not based on a statement of reasons;
In support of their claims, the applicants argue:                        — was taken in breach of the procedure applicable to
                                                                             decisions on rotation; and
— that the retaliatory measures in question were the direct
    consequence of the Community maintaining in force a                  — infringed his rights to be informed and to be heard
    system of rules which the WTO had already ruled unlawful;                beforehand.
— that in this case there has been a serious breach of a
    number of higher legal rules protecting individuals, such
    as the principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’, the protection of
    legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the right to prop-
    erty, and the right to pursue an economic activity, and also
    of the principle of sound administration.
                                                                         Action brought on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Fichtner
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-75/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/55)
Action brought on 28 March 2000 by Steffen Skovmand                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-72/00)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Ficht-
                                                                         ner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar.
                        (2000/C 135/54)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — annul as manifestly unfounded in fact and in law the
                                                                             Commission’s decision of 30 September 1999, removing
                                                                             him from his post without loss of pension rights;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation of not less
European Communities on 28 March 2000 by Steffen                             than EUR 50000 for material and non-material damage,
Skovmand, residing in Bucharest, represented by Georges                      the exact amount to be determined by the Court of First
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar.                                           Instance;


title: Case C-154/03: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 146/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
4.    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective      1.     Must Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
      judicial protection.                                                    of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                              schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                              and to members of their families moving within the
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                               Community (1) be interpreted as applying only where a
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.                                                 migrant worker is entitled to family benefits under the
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.                                                 legislation of the State of employment and under the
                                                                              legislation of the State in which the members of his
                                                                              family are resident?
                                                                       2.     If so, may the bodies of the State of employment suspend
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                       entitlement to family benefits where they consider that a
richt München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of                         refusal to grant family benefits in the State of residence is
that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger                         incompatible with Community law?
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Trans-
                     port International B.V.
                                                                       3.     If not, does Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 permit
                          (Case C-148/03)                                     the State of employment to apply the rule against
                                                                              aggregation of benefits where, under the law of the State
                          (2003/C 146/46)                                     of residence of the family members, the worker’s spouse
                                                                              receives or is entitled to similar family benefits?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — (Munich Higher
Regional Court, Civil Chambers in Augsburg) of 27 March                (1 ) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/
                                                                            83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6).
2003, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International
B.V. on the following question:
Do the provisions on jurisdiction contained in other conven-
tions take precedence over the general provisions on jurisdic-
tion in the Brussels Convention even where a defendant
domiciled in the territory of a State which is a party to the
Brussels Convention and against whom an action has been
brought before a court of another State which is a party to
that Convention fails to submit pleas as to the merits of the
case in the proceedings before that court?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judg-
ment of that Court of 6 March 2003 in the case of                                                (Case C-154/03)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales against Ursula
                    SCHWARZ, née WEIDE
                          (Case C-153/03)                                                        (2003/C 146/48)
                          (2003/C 146/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
(Court of Cassation) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of               An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
6 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2003,          Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale des           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Prestations Familiales against Ursula SCHWARZ, née WEIDE               Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
on the following questions:                                            Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 146/29
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               —     annul the judgment issued by the Court of First Instance
      Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on                           of 28 January 2003 in case T-147/00, Servier;
      transportable pressure equipment ( 1) and Commission
      Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 adapting the
      latter directive to technical progress ( 2), or in any event         —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
      by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;
2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           a)    Fundamental misinterpretation of the division of powers
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to                  First, the appellant submits that it is clear from the
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                    assessment in the contested judgment that the Court
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the                    of First Instance has fundamentally misinterpreted the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period                    division of powers between the Community and the
expired on 1 December 2000 and 1 July 2001 respectively                          Member States in relation to harmonisation as regards
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                       medicinal products for human use in general and to
comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of                     Chapter III of Directive 75/319 ( 2) in particular.
the Commission.
                                                                                The Court of First Instance takes the view, referring to
                                                                                the judgment in T-74/00, Artegodan and others, that
( 1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 20.                                                  Chapter III of Directive 75/319 provides both for ‘exclus-
( 2) OJ L 5, 10.1.2001, p. 4.                                                    ive competence of the Member States’ and for ‘exclusive
                                                                                competence of the Commission’ and that it is therefore
                                                                                necessary to determine whether there has been a ‘[transfer
                                                                                of] competence from the Member States concerned to
                                                                                the Community’.
                                                                                In taking this stance, the Court of First Instance fails
                                                                                to understand that the various provisions making up
Appeal brought on 4 April 2003 by the Commission of the                          Chapter III of Directive 75/319, including Articles 12 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                           15a, which are particularly at issue here, are all based on
28 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended                                  a system of powers shared between the Member States
Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the                               and the Community. Chapter III thus gives Member States
European Communities in case T-147/00 between Les                                the right to initiate certain procedures for granting,
Laboratoires Servier and the Commission of the European                          varying or withdrawing marketing authorisations, and
                             Communities                                         lays on the Community, represented by the Commission,
                                                                                a duty to achieve harmonisation by way of decisions
                                                                                which the Member States are then required to implement.
                          (Case C-156/03 P)
                                                                           b)    Legal assessment based on a Commission decision which
                           (2003/C 146/49)                                       was not the subject of the dispute
                                                                                Still by way of a preliminary submission, the appellant
                                                                                would point out that the Commission decision
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2003                      (C(2000)573) of 9 March 2000 (the ‘2000 decision’)
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court                        which was the subject of the appeal at first instance, is
of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-147/                     based on Article 15a(1) of Directive 75/319. However, it
00 (1) between Les Laboratoires Servier and the Commission                       must be noted that, rather than directly and specifically
of the European Communities, was brought before the Court                        interpreting this legal basis, the Court of First Instance
of Justice of the European Communities on 4 April 2003 by                        confines itself to examining Commission decision
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                          C(96)3608 final/1 of 9 December 1996 (the ‘1996
by R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, acting as agents, with an                      decision’) and other provisions of Directive 75/319 in
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               order to interpret Article 15a by pure deduction.


title: Case C-235/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Safe Interenvíos SA v Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Customer due diligence measures — Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Safe Interenvíos SA v Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA
   (Case C-235/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Customer due diligence measures - Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market))
   (2016/C 156/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Safe Interenvíos SA

      Defendants: Liberbank SA, Banco de Sabadell SA, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 5, 7, 11(1) and 13 of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, authorises the application of standard customer due diligence measures in so far as the customers are financial institutions whose compliance with due diligence measures is supervised when there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 7(c) of that directive and, secondly, requires the institutions and persons covered by the directive to apply, on a risk-sensitive basis, enhanced customer due diligence measures in situations which by their nature can present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the directive, such as that of the transfer of funds.
               Furthermore, even in the absence of such a suspicion or such a risk, Article 5 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 allows the Member States to adopt or retain in force stricter provisions where those provisions seek to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

               2.

               Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that the institutions and persons covered by that directive may not compromise the task of supervising payment institutions with which the competent authorities are entrusted pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, and may not take the place of those authorities. Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that, whilst a financial institution may, in performing the supervisory obligation which it owes in respect of its customers, take account of the due diligence measures applied by a payment institution in respect of its own customers, all the due diligence measures that it adopts must be appropriate to the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing.

               3.

               Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2005/60 as amended by Directive 2010/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted pursuant either to the discretion which Article 13 of that directive grants the Member States or to the power in Article 5 of the directive, must be compatible with EU law, in particular the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties. Whilst such national legislation designed to combat money laundering or terrorist financing pursues a legitimate aim capable of justifying a restriction on the fundamental freedoms and whilst to presume that transfers of funds by an institution covered by that directive to States other than the State in which it is established always present a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing is appropriate for securing the attainment of that aim, that legislation exceeds, however, what is necessary for the purpose of achieving the aim which it pursues, since the presumption which it establishes applies to any transfer of funds, without providing for the possibility of rebutting the presumption in the case of transfers of funds not objectively presenting such a risk.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 August 2016 in Case E-33/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 2012/26/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance)

text:
               13.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/22

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 2 August 2016
   in Case E-33/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 2012/26/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance)
   (2017/C 120/10)
   In Case E-33/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance) as adapted to the Agreement under Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-626/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — European Commission v Slovakia

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/9

         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — European Commission v Slovakia
   (Case C-626/16)
   (2017/C 078/13)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission requests the Court to:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia, in which the Court of Justice declared that the Slovak Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(a)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               2.

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account:

                           (a)

                           a penalty payment of EUR 6 793.80 per day of delay in the adoption of the measures necessary for the Slovak Republic to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia, payable from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date of adoption of the measures necessary for the Slovak Republic to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia,

                           (b)

                           a lump sum of EUR 743.60 per day, totalling a minimum of EUR 939 000, for every day of delay in the adoption of the measures necessary for the Slovak Republic to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia, payable from the date of delivery of that judgment on 25 April 2013:

                                       —

                                       until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or

                                       —

                                       until the date of the adoption of the measures necessary for the Slovak Republic to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia, if that date precedes the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, and

               3.

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 25 April 2013, the Court of Justice delivered the judgment in Case C-331/11, Commission v Slovakia, in which it ruled that by authorising the operation of the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site without a site conditioning plan and in the absence of a final decision on the continued operation on the basis of an approved site conditioning plan, the Slovak Republic had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 14(a) to (c) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste.
   In the course of the pre-litigation procedure, the Slovak Republic stated that it was planning to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11 by closing the Žilina-Považský Chlmec waste site, and that certain steps had already been taken in this connection.
   However, the European Commission has ascertained that, in spite of the Slovak Republic’s statements, the measures required by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/11 have not yet been adopted. The European Commission has therefore decided to bring an action under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-241/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 — Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   (Case C-241/06)
   (2006/C 212/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lämmerzahl GmbH

      Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in particular Article 1(1) and (3), for a tenderer to be generally barred from gaining access to a review of a contracting authority's decision to award public contracts because the tenderer wrongfully failed to raise an irregularity in the award procedure within the time-limit laid down for that purpose in national law, where the irregularity relates

                           (a)

                           to the form of invitation to tender selected
                           or

                           (b)

                           to the correctness of the determination of the contract price (the estimate is obviously wrong or the method of determination is not sufficiently transparent)
                           and a review of other irregularities in the award procedure that — considered in isolation — would not be time-barred would be permissible on the basis of the contract price correctly determined or to be determined?

               2.

               Should the details in a tender notice relevant to determination of the contract price be subject to any special requirements so as to enable the conclusion to be drawn from irregularities relating to the estimated contract price that the protection of primary law is generally precluded even if the correctly estimated contract price exceeds the relevant threshold amount?

      (1)  OJ L 209, p. 1.