title: Case C-501/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 79/10                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
4. The contested judgment is also vitiated by a breach of             Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
    Community law by the Court of First Instance inasmuch             of the European Communities against the French Republic
    as it misapplied the principle of proportionality, misasses-
    sed the Commission’s power of discretionary power and
                                                                                (Case C-502/99)
    broke with precedent.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/19)
                                                                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                      der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                      Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                      the Court should:
                         (Case C-501/99)
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                           time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                          (2000/C 79/18)                                   visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           97/61/EC of 20 October 1997 amending the Annex to
                                                                           Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           for the production and placing on the market of live
Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           bivalve molluscs (1), the French Republic has failed to
the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                           comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,               — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 2 of
    time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-          Directive 97/61/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements
    for approving and registering certain establishments and          (1) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 35.
    intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and            (2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.
    amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC
    and 82/471/EEC’(1), the French Republic has failed to
    comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                     (Case C-503/99)
in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 21 of
Directive 95/69/EC expired on 1 April 1998.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/20)
(1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 15.                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
(2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.                                         the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                      in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-28/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Mixed international agreements — Decision authorising the signing of those agreements and providing for their provisional application — Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council — Autonomy of the EU legal order — Participation of the Member States in the procedure and decision provided for in Article 218 TFEU — Voting arrangements within the Council)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-28/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Mixed international agreements - Decision authorising the signing of those agreements and providing for their provisional application - Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council - Autonomy of the EU legal order - Participation of the Member States in the procedure and decision provided for in Article 218 TFEU - Voting arrangements within the Council))
   (2015/C 213/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, K. Simonsson and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos and A. Auersperger Matić, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès, E. Karlsson, F. Naert and R. Szostak, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: U. Melgaard and L. Volck Madsen, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, N. Graf Vitzthum and B. Beutler, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Khala, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, F. Fize, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M.-L. Duarte, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and R. Palmer, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision 2011/708/EU of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, of 16 June 2011, on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part; and on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/708 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period from the delivery of the present judgment, of a new decision that is to be adopted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 218(5) and (8) TFEU;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-344/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italia) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cristiano Blanco v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italia) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cristiano Blanco v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-344/13)
   2013/C 260/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cristiano Blanco

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

      Question referred

   Is it incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty for persons resident in Italy to be required to declare for tax purposes, and be liable for tax on, winnings obtained from casinos in Member States of the European Union, as provided for by Article 67(1)(d) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22.12.1986 (‘the TUIR’), or must this be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, pursuant to Article 46 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case T-19/17: Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/26

         Action brought on 14 January 2017 — Fastweb v Commission
   (Case T-19/17)
   (2017/C 070/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Fastweb S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, L. Armati, A. Guarino and E. Cerchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Fastweb S.p.A. is seeking annulment of the decision of 1 September 2016 by which the European Commission authorised the merger in Case M.7758 Hutchinson 3 Italy/Wind/JV, pursuant to Article 8(2) of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [of 20 January 2004] on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), declaring the transaction whereby Hutchinson Europe Telecommunications (HET) and VimpelCom Luxembourg Holdings (VIP) acquire joint control of a newly-created joint venture (JV) by conferring on that JV their respective activities in the telecommunications sector in Italy to be compatible with the internal market, that compatibility being subject to conditions and obligations aimed at enabling the entry into the internal market of a new [mobile] network operator (MNO).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency, and infringement of Article 8 of the regulation mentioned above.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s investigation is vitiated by serious and manifest omissions, first and foremost of a procedural nature, in particular: (A) shortcomings that occurred before the final commitments were submitted, consisting in a failure to prepare, when faced with several serious candidates interested in the package of measures, a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure capable of guaranteeing that the best candidate would be selected, and in incorrectly accepting a ‘fix-it-first’ preventive remedy proposed too late in the procedure; and (B) shortcomings in the inquiry that took place after the final commitments were submitted, in particular the failure to assess certain aspects of those commitments (for example with regard to the roaming agreement) and the lack of adequate further examination regarding the suitability of the proposed acquirer, shortcomings rendered more obvious by the lack of market testing.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in so far as the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had determined the success of the entry of H3G, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hutchinson through which the latter operates.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in particular, did not concern itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years was operating within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the package of commitments.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the comparison with H3G’s frequency holdings pre-merger in itself raises serious doubts regarding the adequacy of the proposed spectrum allocation. In addition, the Commission relied on future, uncertain events, such as the participation of the new MNO in the future calls for tenders, without however taking into account the high costs connected with the impending renewal and refarming of the transferred frequencies. The Commission accepted the transfer of an inadequate number of sites, relying on uncertain agreements with the tower companies. Lastly, the transitional agreement concluded with the notifying parties, which has a structure based on capacity, strongly reduces the incentive to invest.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission, by basing the analysis of the merger and the commitments on the incorrect assumption that the price is the only significant competitive factor within the relevant market, failed to conduct a proper inquiry.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission disregarded the fact that network coverage and quality are of comparable importance, and that it should not have confined itself to a static analysis of the preferences of a very biased sample of users in the ‘low spender’ category. In addition, the Commission disregarded the prospective importance of the merger, which is decisive for a new entrant, which requires additional bargaining levers compared with an established operator (such as H3G). The selection of an acquirer capable of addressing the converging demand would have ensured greater effectiveness and sustainability of the commitments over time.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an incorrect assessment of the suitability of the commitments for resolving the concerns regarding coordinated effects on the retail market.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, in order to be able to act in a truly aggressive way and ‘break’ the collusive equilibrium, the new entrant would have to be able to act independently of other MNOs. However, the formula selected for the making available of resources (roaming agreements and the national multi-operator core network (MOCN)) creates a close dependence between the new MNO and the JV for a protracted period. The contested decision is further vitiated by a failure to carry out a proper inquiry as regards the compatibility of the roaming contracts/national MOCN with Article 101 TFEU.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the commitments are unsuitable for responding to the competition concerns on the wholesale access market.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, in particular, the Commission erred in its reconstruction of the counter-factual scenario and in not requiring any specific measure, relying exclusively on the assurance that Iliad will have an incentive to offer such services notwithstanding (i) the lack of measures to that effect and (ii) that operator’s experience in France. On the contrary, the commitments encourage the new MNO to target and acquire specifically and solely the clientele of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 139/2004 and infringement of the principle of sound administration.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission accepted Iliad as a suitable acquirer without taking into consideration the risks to the effectiveness of the commitments inherent in the entry of an operator with its characteristics and without adequate guarantees having been provided in the commitments, in particular with regard to network coverage/quality.


title: Case C-460/01: Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 84/42               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the               and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period               third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions                   (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the                  the implementation of the Community transit procedure
conclusions of the Commission.                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.                                         down provisions for the implementation of Council
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
                                                                            munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
                                                                            11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
                                                                            of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
                                                                            Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
                                                                            resources (4);
Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-                        (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
mission of the European Communities against the
                 Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-460/01)
                                                                      —     Infringement of the second sentence of the second
                          (2002/C 84/73)                                    subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
                                                                            Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                Community        Customs      Code,     hereinafter     ‘the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European                          No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,                    after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of the
acting as Agents.                                                           implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
                                                                            for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
                                                                            offices of departures and destination in the context of an
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 external Community transit procedure, in particular
                                                                            where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and                     is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
     31 December 1995:                                                      The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
                                                                            concerning the correct application of the period of three
     —     failed, where the declarant in an external Com-                  months which starts to run on the day of notification
           munity transit procedure has not, within three                   of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
           months from notification by the customs office                   regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
           of departure that the consignment has not been                   limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
           presented at the customs office of destination,                  required within that period to furnish proof of the
           furnished proof of the regularity of the transit                 regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
           operation concerned — at the latest on the third day             that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
           following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps           which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
           to enter in the accounts and recover the customs                 much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
           debt and other charges involved, or by having done               Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
           so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,                   following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
           Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June                     been furnished by the declarant, the Member State
           1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,                concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
           dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition               customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
           1971 (II), p. 354);                                              month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
                                                                            departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
     —     failed promptly to make available to the Com-                    in order to calculate the customs debt in question
           mission the own resources relating thereto; and                  (Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
                                                                            graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
     —     refused to pay the default interest connected there-             concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
           with,                                                            and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
                                                                            Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
     obligations under the second sentence of the second                    circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
     subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation                 possible extension of the time-limit pursuant to
     (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for                    Article 219 of the CCC, the Member State has no
     the implementation of the Community transit procedure                  discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/43
      should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in          (1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
      the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the             State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
      Member State is required to take immediate steps,                     ‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?
      following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
      by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
      Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as         (2) If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
      much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,             made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
      ‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the                  result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
      evidence produced in a given case’. The argument                      law?
      advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
      seeking the application of Article 219 of the CCC.
      However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions          (3) If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
      designed to safeguard the financial interests of the                  accepted on some other ground?
      Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
      form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
      the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
      it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
      extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
      Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
      always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
      necessary to extend the time-limit for entry in the
      accounts.
—     Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation
      No 1552/89.                                                      Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
—     Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:                                         Austria
      the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
      necessary consequences of the infringement described in
      the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
      lands failed to make the principal sum available. In                                    (Case C-465/01)
      addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
      corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
      the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
                                                                                (2002/C 84/75)
      authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
      way of default interest.
( 1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.                                              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
( 4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                              4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, with an address
                                                                       for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
                                                                       Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
                                                                       embourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
      2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-462/01)
                                                                       (1) declare that:
                           (2002/C 84/74)
                                                                            (a)  by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
                                                                                States from the right to stand for election to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was                         Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a                         movement for workers within the Community and
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten                     under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
on the following questions:                                                      Economic Area;


title: Case C-123/05: Action brought on 15 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/15

         Action brought on 15 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-123/05)
   (2005/C 115/28)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by X. Lewis and A. Aresu, members of the Commission's legal service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by adopting Article 44 of Law No 724 of 23 December 1994, amending Article 6(2) of Law No 573 of 24 December 1993 so as to permit the renewal of public service contracts to previous contract-holders, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, and Articles 6 and 9 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC (2) of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, and Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission has challenged Article 6(2) of Law No 537 of 1993 as amended by Article 44 of Law No 724 of 1994. In particular that provision prohibits the tacit renewal of public contracts for the supply of goods and services but also provides that ‘within three months of the expiry of the contracts the administration shall ascertain whether it is convenient and in the public interest for those contracts to be renewed and, if so, shall notify the contracting party of its willingness to renew the contract.’
   The Commission submits that those provisions allow public bodies to award, directly and without any tendering procedure, new service and supply contracts which are thus awarded under procedures which do not comply with Community law. There is an infringement of the principles laid down by Directive 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC respectively on public service and supply contracts. Furthermore, those provisions infringe the principles of equality and transparency intended to ensure the freedoms of establishment and the supply of services under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.


title: Case C-492/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-492/07)
   (2008/C 22/50)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Nijenhuis and K. Moyzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure the proper incorporation into national law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and in particular Article 2(k) with reference to the definition of a subscriber, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.


title: Appeal brought on 20 August 1997 by Tiercé Ladbroke SA against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997 by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-504/93 between Tiercé Ladbroke SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Société d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de France and others (Case C-300/97 P)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/7
Action brought on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           ( Case C-298/97 )                            — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply fully and
                             ( 97/C 318/11 )                                 properly with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
                                                                             24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
                                                                             regulations and administrative provisions of the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                           Member States regarding the protection of animals
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      used for experimental and other scientific purposes (')
on 13 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                          and in particular Articles 19 ( 5 ) and 6 ( 1 ) of the
Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la                          Directive, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
Torre, acting as Agent, with an address . for service in                     its obligations pursuant to the third paragraph of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 25 ( 1 ) of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 .                                     Directive 86/609/EEC,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
                                                                             the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
                                                                             Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
— declare that, by failing to draw up or communicate to                      under those provisions,
     the Commission, within the period prescribed therefor,
     the programmes provided for ip Article 6 of Council                — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries
     and accumulators containing certain dangerous
     substances ('), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     fulfil its obligations thereunder,
                                                                        Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        a Directive is to be binding, as to the result to be
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                         achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
                                                                        addressed. The Commission finds that, despite the expiry
                                                                        of the time limits laid down in Article 25 of Directive 86/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     609/EEC on 24 November 1989, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                        has still not adopted all the implementing provisions into
                                                                        its legal system .
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article
5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                  H OJ L 358 , 18 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 .
measures necessary to transpose Directives addressed to
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the
period prescribed for doing so . That period expired on
17 September 1992 without Spain having communicated
the programmes which should have been drawn up for an
initial period of four years as from March 1993 .                       Appeal brought on 20 August 1997 by Tierce Ladbroke
                                                                        SA against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997 by the
C ) OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                  Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Case T-504/93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported
                                                                        by the Societe d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de
                                                                                France and others
                                                                                ( Case C-300/97 P)
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by the Commission                                                ( 97/C 318/13 )
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                  Republic
                           ( Case C-299/97)                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997
                                                                        by the Second Chamber ( extended composition ) of the
                             ( 97/C 318/12 )                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Case T-504/93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   the Societe d'encouragement et des steeple-chases de
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 France and others, was brought before the Court of
on 19 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                     Justice of the European Communities on 20 August 1997
Communities, represented by Lena Strom and Francisco                    by Tierce Ladbroke SA, represented by Christopher Vajda,
de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                QC, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an address for
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy &
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                      Err, 60, avenue Gaston Diderich .
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 . allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the              1 . annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June
     Court of First Instance in Case T-504/93 ;                             1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of
                                                                            imports of rice originating in the overseas countries
                                                                            and territories;
2.   annul the Decision contained in the Commission 's
     letter of 24 June 1993 ; and                                    2 . order the Council to pay the costs.
3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of Tierce                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Ladbroke both in the proceedings before the Court of
     First Instance and before this Court .
                                                                     — Breach of the principle of legal certainty: the Council
                                                                            has failed to specify what the legal position will be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         once the tariff quota laid down in Article 1 of
                                                                            Regulation ( EC ) No 1036/97 has been exhausted.
                                                                            Individuals do not know what their rights and
Infringement of Community law                                               obligations will be after that quota has been
                                                                            exhausted .
— in that the Court of First Instance failed to correctly
     define the relevant product market. It upheld the               — Infringement of Article 7 ( 5 ) of the Agreement on
     approach of the Commission and relied on a spurious                    Safeguards (') and of Article 228 ( 7) of the EC Treaty:
     'comparison ' between the principal betting market and                 Article 7 ( 5 ) of the Agreement is applicable to
    the ancillary market rather than to consider whether                    relations between the Community and OCTs which,
     French sound and pictures were substitutable from the                  by virtue of the Agreement establishing the World
     demand and supply side,                                               Trade Organization, are in the same position as third
                                                                            countries . The Kingdom of the Netherlands approved
                                                                           the Agreement establishing the World Trade
— in that the Court of First Instance failed to appreciate                  Organization on behalf of the Netherlands Antilles
     the legal significance of the decision of the societes de              and Aruba by National Law of 21 December 1994 .
     courses to permit the PMU, via the PMI, to licence
     French sound and pictures in one Member State
     outside France, namely Germany, and the refusal to              — Infringement of Article 109 ( 1 ) of Council Decision
     allow an equivalent licence to be granted in another                   91 /482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
     Member State outside France, namely Belgium.                           overseas countries and territories with the European
     Additionally, the motive for such refusal was to limit                 Economic Community ( 2 ), hereinafter 'the OCT
    competition from the Ladbroke group, both in respect                   Decision ' ( see Case C-110/97, OJ C 181 , 14 . 6. 1997,
     of the PMU's Belgian ally, the Belgian PMU and                        p. 1 ).
    generally. Whether such conduct is to be termed
     discriminatory, arbitrary or a partitioning of the              — Infringement of Article 109 ( 2 ) of the OCT Decision
    common market is of less importance than the                            ( see Case C-110/97).
    conclusion that such conduct cannot be objectively
    justified.
                                                                     — Misuse of powers: since the Commission has not
                                                                            succeeded in persuading the Council to accept the
                                                                           amendment of the OCT Decision advocated by it, it is
                                                                            attempting to achieve one of the most significant
                                                                            objectives of the review of the OCT Decision proposed
                                                                            by it, namely the cessation of imports of rice
Action brought on 20 August 1997 by the Kingdom of the                     originating in the OCTs or at least a substantial
   Netherlands against the Council of the European Union                   reduction thereof, by other, impermissible means .
                        ( Case C-301/97
                                                                     — Infringement of Annex IV to the OCT Decision ( see
                          ( 97/C 318/14 )                                   Case C-110/97).
An action against the Council of the European Union was              — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty ( see Case
                                                                            C-110/97).
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 20 August 1997 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. S. van den Oosterkamp and             ( ) See Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
M. A. Fierstra, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of                Organization.
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p. 1 .
Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue
C. M. Spoo .


title: Case F-52/10: Action brought on 3 July 2010 — Merhzaoui v Council

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/61

         Action brought on 3 July 2010 — Merhzaoui v Council
   (Case F-52/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 May 2010 establishing the applicant’s definitive staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2009.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 May 2010 establishing the applicant’s definitive staff report for the 2008-2009 period;

               —

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


title: Case C-73/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz, Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg

text:
C 135/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of                    the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Neubau                       Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-Hohensinner OEG, Grund-                    First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundver-                 158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Com-
       kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-72/00)
                                                                                (Case C-74/00 P)
                        (2000/C 135/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                        (2000/C 135/12)
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
the appeal concerning Neubau Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Hohensinner OEG, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes                  of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,
Salzburg on the following question:                                    interveners) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be        European Communities on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to          represented by Giulio Macrı̀, Massimo Condinanzi and Franco
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                Colussi, with an address for service at 36, Rue de Wiltz,
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Luxembourg.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by         1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                  the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between
case?                                                                      Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA, inter-
                                                                           veners);
                                                                       2. By so doing, annul Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC (1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz,                 In the alternative:
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grund-
         verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
                                                                       3. In the event that the Court of Justice should decide that it
                         (Case C-73/00)                                    cannot make a decision as to the status of the measure, set
                                                                           aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and refer
                        (2000/C 135/11)                                    the case to another sitting of the Court of First Instance,
                                                                           indicating the points of law upheld in the present appeal.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               In any event:
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz, Bürgermeister der
Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des            4. Make any other decisions it may deem necessary.
Landes Salzburg on the following question:
                                                                       5. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Pleas and main arguments
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the            The contested judgment should be set aside on the following
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the         grounds:
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?                                                                  — Failure to declare that the rights of the defence had
                                                                           been infringed by the administrative decision and the
                                                                           inconsistency of the decision at issue;


title: Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  1 February 2006  — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark GERONIMO STILTON — Opposition — Stay of proceedings — Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought — Withdrawal of the opposition)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM
   (Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark GERONIMO STILTON - Opposition - Stay of proceedings - Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought - Withdrawal of the opposition)
   (2006/C 86/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Elisabetta Dami (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Beduschi and S. Giudici, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Stilton Cheese Makers Association (Surbiton, Surrey, United Kingdom)
   Action
   Two actions against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mrs Elisabetta Dami and The Stilton Cheese Makers Association,
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2);

               2.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case C-452/99: Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
5.2.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 34/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsge-                     — by failing to take into account the professional experi-
richt Wien by order of that court of 10 November 1999                          ence of divers who brought requests for equivalence
in the case of Cura Anlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H. v ASL                          before the French authorities,
                 Auto Service Leasing GmbH
                        (Case C-451/99)                                    the French Republic has failed to apply correctly
                                                                           Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC (formerly Articles 48, 52
                                                                           and 59 of the EC Treaty) and Article 8 of Directive
                         (2000/C 34/32)                                    92/51/EEC (1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht                2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 10 November 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cura Anlagen
Gesellschaft m.b.H. v ASL Auto Service Leasing GmbH on the
following question:                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Is Article 49 et seq. EC (or alternatively Article 28 EC) to be
interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of            The hyperbaric fitness certificate provided for by the French
Member State A which prohibit an undertaking established in           Decree of 28 March 1990 is an attestation of competence
Member State A from using for more than three days, or for            within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC.
more than a year as the case may be, in Member State A a
motor vehicle which is leased from a leasing undertaking
established in Member State B and registered in Member
State B in the name of the leasing undertaking established            To comply with Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC, the com-
there, without obtaining a (second) registration for that motor       petent authorities of the host Member State, when ascertaining
vehicle in Member State A?                                            whether the conditions in indents (a) or (b) of that article are
                                                                      satisfied, may not ignore the knowledge and qualifications
                                                                      already acquired by the person concerned in another Member
                                                                      State and must examine the qualifications acquired in that
                                                                      Member State. However, as the French rules now stand,
                                                                      certificates obtained in the other Member States are refused
                                                                      recognition if they are not on the list in Annex III to the Decree
                                                                      of 28 January 1991, and the French authorities do not
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                        examine on a case-by-case basis whether the training and the
mission of the European Communities against the French                qualifications obtained correspond to the French requirements.
                            Republic
                        (Case C-452/99)                               Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC must be interpreted in the
                                                                      light of the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to
                         (2000/C 34/33)                               Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC (formerly Articles 48, 52 and 59 of
                                                                      the EC Treaty), and in particular in the light of the Vlassopou-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          lou (2) judgment concerning the mutual recognition of dip-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 Novem-             lomas. That case-law has been extended to professional
ber 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,               activities which, as regards the conditions for taking them up
represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, and Bernard        or pursuing them, are not subject by virtue of legal provision
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address       to the possession of a diploma in the strict sense (3). Conse-
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la        quently, the Commission considers that even if recognition
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 concerns not a diploma but an attestation of competence, the
                                                                      principle of legal certainty requires the national legal system
                                                                      to provide for a procedure ensuring that the person concerned
The Commission claims that the Court should:                          has an opportunity to discover the necessary compensating
                                                                      measures and have the benefit of a reasoned decision against
1. Declare that,                                                      which a remedy is available.
    — by failing to introduce a procedure for comparing the
        knowledge and qualifications attested by diplomas of
        divers obtained in another Member State and not               According to Vlassopoulou, if the comparison discloses that
        recognised as equivalent in France with those required        the knowledge and qualifications certified by the foreign
        by French legislation, and in any event by failing to         diploma correspond only partially to those required by the
        carry out that comparison in the case of divers holding       national provisions, the host Member State is entitled to
        Belgian qualifications who have come to work in               require the person concerned to show that he has acquired the
        France, and                                                   missing knowledge and qualifications. In this regard, the
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
competent national authorities must assess whether the know-                — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
ledge acquired in the host Member State, either during a course                  the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,
of study or by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order
to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. The
same reasoning must surely apply to knowledge acquired in                   — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as
the Member State of origin.                                                      required by the relevant Community Regulations,
                                                                            — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
A company which carries out works on the territory of a
                                                                                quota was exhausted, and
Member State other than that in which it is established
provides services there. The refusal of the French authorities to
examine whether the qualifications of its employees are                     — in failing, (in 1988 only), to take sufficient measures to
equivalent to those required by French legislation and to                        prevent the mis-reporting of landings of mackerel
indicate the appropriate compensatory measures constitutes
an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, since it prevents
undertakings established in a Member State other than France                — in failing to take administrative or penal action against
from providing their services with the aid of their own                          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or
employees. The host Member State is obliged to ascertain that                    against such other person as was responsible for such
the conditions it lays down for the exercise of the profession                   infringement,
do not needlessly duplicate the equivalent legal conditions
already satisfied in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                            the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations
                                                                            imposed on it by i) article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No. 170/83(1) and of article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC)
(1) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 on a second general system            No. 2057/82 (2) (with respect to the period to 1 August
    for the recognition of professional education and training to           1987) and article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 (3)
    supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.                   (in respect of the period thereafter); ii) of article 10(2)
(2) Case C-340/89, [1991] ECR I-2357.                                       of Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 and article 11(2) of
(3) See Case C-164/94 Aranitis v Land Berlin [1996] ECR I-135,              Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87; iii) of article 9 of Regu-
    paragraph 32.                                                           lation (EEC) No. 2241/87; (iv) article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) 2057/82 or article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2057/82
                                                                            or article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 in combination with
                                                                            article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83;
                                                                        2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                          Pleas in law and main arguments
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        — The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate
                                                                            detailed rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas
                         (Case C-454/99)                                    allocated to it, contrary to Article 5 (2) of Regulation
                                                                            170/83.
                          (2000/C 34/34)
                                                                        — The United Kingdom has not ensured compliance with
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article 1 of
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                 Regulations 2057/82 (as regards 1985 to 1 August 1987)
the European Communities on 30 November 1999 by the                         and 2241/87 (from 1 August 1987). These Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      imposed more specific obligations on Member States than
Mr Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Mr Keir Fitch, an                    Regulation 170/83, intended in each case to ensure
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the               compliance with the regulations in force concerning
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as               conservations and control measures.
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Member of the Legal Service of the                   — The United Kingdom, by failing to record landings of
Commission, Centre Wagner C-254, Luxembourg, pursuant
                                                                            stocks subject to TACs or Quota (1988 only), has infringed
to Article 226 EC.                                                          Article 9 of Regulation 2241/87.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             — The United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under
                                                                            Article 10 of Regulation 2057/82 or Article 11 of Regu-
1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988                lation 2241/87 to prohibit fishery provisionally when the
     and 1990                                                               quota allocated to it was deemed to have been exhausted.


title: Case C-240/11 P: Order of the Court of 3 May 2012 — World Wide Tobacco España, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions or concerted practices — The Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Deterrent effect — Equal treatment — Mitigating circumstances — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Cooperation)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/4

         Order of the Court of 3 May 2012 — World Wide Tobacco España, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-240/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions or concerted practices - The Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)
   2012/C 303/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: World Wide Tobacco España, SA (represented by: M. Odriozola and A. Vide, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 in Case T-37/05 World Wide Tobacco España v Commission by which the General Court rejected in part an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final, of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) (EC) (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The main appeal and the additional appeal are dismissed.

               2.

               World Wide Tobacco España, SA is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the additional appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 December 2004 in Case C-498/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Zapf Creation AG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — ‘New Born Baby’ — No need to give judgment)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/3

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 1 December 2004
   in Case C-498/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Zapf Creation AG (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - ‘New Born Baby’ - No need to give judgment)
   (2005/C 93/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-498/01 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 20 December 2001, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, M. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji, assisted by M. Tappin), the other party to the proceedings being: Zapf Creation AG, established in Rödental (Germany) (Lawyers: A. Kockläuner and S. Zech) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               It is unnecessary to give judgment on the appeal brought by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

               2.

               Zapf Creation AG shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.


title: Case C-317/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/14/EC — Informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-317/06) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Informing and consulting employees in the European Community - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 199/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. A. Sampoll Pucurull, agent)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having adopted, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


C 47/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.2.2004
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                           of Germany                                   1.    declare that, by failing to adopt or in any event to
                                                                              inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
                          (Case C-5/04)                                       fully with Council Directive 1999/63/EC (1) of 21 June
                                                                              1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of
                         (2004/C 47/44)                                       working time of seafarers concluded by the European
                                                                              Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the
                                                                              Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European
                                                                              Union (FST) — Annex: European Agreement on the
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                         organisation of working time of seafarers, the Republic
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
ties on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                      of that directive; and
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia
Schmidt, Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative          The period within which the directive was to be implemented
      provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)          expired on 30 June 2002.
      of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
      1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 L 167, p. 33.
      tions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that directive; and
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the case.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-376/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2004/C 47/46)
The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 30 July 2000.                                                By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-376/99: Federal Republic of
(1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.                                               Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 352, 4.12.1999.
Action brought on 13 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria                                           Removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/47)
                         (Case C-10/04)
                         (2004/C 47/45)                                 By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-101/03: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 13 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                    (1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002.
Communities, represented by G. Rozet and H. Kreppel, Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-142/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on  16 March 2006  — Olicom A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on 16 March 2006 — Olicom A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-142/06)
   (2006/C 143/39)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court); (Denmark)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olicom A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Taxation Ministry)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation No 3009/95, to be interpreted as meaning that combined network/modem cards such as those at issue in the main proceedings are to be subject, after 1 January 1996, to customs duty as data-processing machines under heading 8471 or as telecommunication apparatus under heading 8517?
               In that connection the Court of Justice of the European Communities is asked to rule on whether the concept of ‘specific function’ within the meaning of Note 5(E) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 3009/95, is to be interpreted as meaning that classification is to be under a heading other than 8471 when a WAN function is present, or whether there is to be a classification under a heading other than 8471 only if the WAN function can operate independently of an automatic data-processing machine.

               2.

               If the Court of Justice of the European Communities should find that the WAN function in the combined network/modem card is a specific function, the Court is asked to rule on whether it is relevant for the customs classification that the product's principal function can be deemed to be the LAN function.


title: Case T-93/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Mülhens v OHIM

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/43

         Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Mülhens v OHIM
   (Case T-93/06)
   (2006/C 131/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa (Spa, Belgium)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the defendant of 11 January 2006 (Case No 2746/2004);

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark 'MINERAL SPA' for goods in class 3 (soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, preparations for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, dentifrices)
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de SPA

      Mark or sign cited: several trade marks containing the word 'SPA' and, in particular, the Benelux word trade mark 'SPA' for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application for registration of the mark
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94.


title: Case C-226/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez
   (Case C-226/12)
   2012/C 227/17
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Constructora Principado, S.A.

      Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

      Question referred

   In the case of a contractual term which passes on to the consumer payment of an amount which by law is payable by the seller or supplier, is the imbalance referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as arising merely from the act of passing on to the consumer an obligation to pay which by law falls on the seller or supplier, or does the fact that the Directive requires the imbalance to be significant mean that, in addition, the financial burden on the consumer must be significant in relation to the total amount of the transaction?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

      OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-326/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 84/62                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the defendant, as communi-             —     annul the applicant’s staff report for 1995-1997 inas-
      cated to her by letters of 13 February 2001 and 23 Febru-                much as it does not take account of the opinion of the ad
      ary 2001, to apply an age limit set at 65 years to freelance             hoc working party, the ad hoc appeals joint working party
      interpreters and therefore to apply that age limit to her;               and the staff reports Joint Committee, in that it does not
                                                                               assess his duties as a trade union representative and his
                                                                               status as an elected member as being part of the duties
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection of the                      which he is required to undertake in his institution;
      applicant’s complaint by the Commission on 7 September
      2001, received on 10 September 2001;                               —     make an order as to costs requiring the defendant to pay
                                                                               the costs and fees incurred.
—     find that the applicant may continue to work as freelance
      interpreter, for the Community institutions, beyond the
      age of 65;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-
      ally assessed at 1 euro;
                                                                         The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the
                                                                         rejection of his complaint seeking the annulment of his staff
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          report for 1995-1997.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, he claims that certain assessments
                                                                         are not justified and that his professional situation and his
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          career development were adversely affected following his
                                                                         election to a local staff committee and as a result of his union
                                                                         activities. He alleges psychological harassment or mobbing
                                                                         intended to restrict his freedom of association, infringement of
In support of her arguments, the applicant relies on the same            the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
pleas in law as those put forward in T-153/01 Mercedes                   Regulations and breach of the principle of sound adminis-
Alvarez Moreno v Commission (OJ 2001 C 275, p. 11).                      tration.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef                    Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
    against Commission of the European Communities                                              pean Communities
                                                                                (Case T-329/01)
                         (Case T-326/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/115)
                         (2002/C 84/114)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Archer
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Daniels Midland Company, represented by Professor Carl Otto
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio                      Lenz, Ms Lynda Martin Alegi, Mr Edward William Batchelor
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                and Ms Marta Garcia of Baker & McKenzie, London (United
bourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.                           Kingdom).


title: Case T-6/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission (Interim measures — Public contracts — Tendering procedure — Rejection of tender — Application for suspension of operation and interim measures — Loss of opportunity — Lack of serious and irreparable harm — Lack of urgency)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/37

         Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission
   (Case T-6/10 R)
   (Interim measures - Public contracts - Tendering procedure - Rejection of tender - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - Loss of opportunity - Lack of serious and irreparable harm - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 134/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, F. Erlbacher and P. Manzini, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures concerning call for tenders EUROPEAID/127843/D/SER/KOS for the provision of support services to the customs and tax authorities in Kosovo.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.