title: Case C-448/00 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against that part of the judgment delivered on 27 September 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-184/97 between BP Chemicals Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic, which annuls Commission Decision SG (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning an aid scheme for biofuels in France in so far as that decision relates to measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether ("ETBE") sector

text:
C 28/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.1.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                    If either Question III or Question IV is answered in the
Salzburg (as a commercial court) by order of 27 Novem-                     affirmative:
ber 2000 in the application for company registration by
                           Holto Limited                                   V.    Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty prohibit the
                                                                                application of a domestic conflict of laws rule which
                                                                                determines the legal capacity of a company in accordance
                          (Case C-447/00)                                        with the law of the State in which the company has the
                                                                                actual seat of its main administration (the seat theory),
                                                                                even if, as a result, a company that has been effectively
                                                                                constituted under English law but merely has its seat as
                           (2001/C 28/46)
                                                                                declared in its constitution in England and does not carry
                                                                                on any business there is refused recognition as a legal
                                                                                person and consequently refused entry in the companies
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           register (commercial register)?
European Communities by the Landesgericht Salzburg (as a
commercial court) by order of 27 November 2000, received
at the Court Registry on 4 December 2000, in the application
for company registration by Holto Limited for a preliminary
ruling on the following questions:
                                                                           Appeal brought on 4 December 2000 by the Commission
I.     Is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43         of the European Communities against that part of the
       of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a                judgment delivered on 27 September 2000 by the Second
       branch may exist even if a company does not have a                  Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
       principal place of business within the meaning of Article           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
       48 of the EC Treaty at any other place, where it carries            T-184/97 (1) between BP Chemicals Ltd and the Com-
       out at least an essential part of its business activity?            mission of the European Communities, supported by the
                                                                           French Republic, which annuls Commission Decision SG
                                                                           (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 (2) concerning an aid scheme
If so:                                                                     for biofuels in France in so far as that decision relates to
                                                                           measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’)
                                                                                sector
II.    Is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43
       of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      (Case C-448/00 P)
       requirement of establishment is fulfilled if a company
       merely has its seat as declared in its constitution in a                                      (2001/C 28/47)
       Member State in which it was effectively constituted and
       does not carry on any business there?                               An appeal against that part of the judgment delivered on
                                                                           27 September 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                           Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
If so:                                                                     Communities in Case T-184/97 between BP Chemicals Ltd
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, which annuls Commission Decision
III. Does the establishment of an Austrian branch of a                     SG (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning an aid scheme
       company that has been effectively constituted under                 for biofuels in France in so far as that decision relates to
       English law but merely has its seat as declared in its              measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’)
       constitution in England and does not carry on any                   sector, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       business there belong to the rights under the second                Communities on 4 December 2000 by the Commission of
       sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43 and by                the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, a
       Article 48 of the EC Treaty?                                        member of the Legal Service, acting as agent, assisted by
                                                                           Nicholas Khan, Barrister, of the Inner Temple, with an address
                                                                           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
If any of Questions I, II or III are answered in the negative:             Centre Wagner.
                                                                           The Appellant claims that the Court should:
IV. Does the establishment of an Austrian branch and its
       entry in the Austrian companies register (commercial                1.    Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
       register) by a company effectively constituted under                      Instance of 27 September 2000 handed down in Case
       English law which merely has its seat as declared in its                  T-184/97, BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission, which
       constitution in England and does not carry on any                         annulled Commission Decision SG (97) D/3266 of
       business there belong to the rights covered by the first                  9 April 1997 concerning an aid scheme for biofuels in
       sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43 and by                      France in so far as that decision relates to measures
       Article 48 of the EC Treaty?                                              applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’) sector;
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 28/25
2.    Dismiss the action for annulment of Commission                   the Decision. In particular, it submits that the Court of First
      Decision SG (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning an            Instance erred in law by adopting an interpretation of a ‘pilot
      aid scheme for biofuels in France in so far as that decision     project’ which is limited to a project at the last stage of research
      relates to measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-         and development before industrial exploitation on a larger
      ether (‘ETBE’) sector as unfounded                               scale of the results of such research.
3.    And, order BP Chemicals Ltd to bear the costs of the             The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance so
      action for annulment in Case T-184/97                            erred for two reasons:
4.    Alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First         —     The Court of First Instance was wrong to consider that
      Instance for judgment on the first, third and fourth pleas             the Community framework for State aid for Research
      rased by the Applicant in the action for annulment,                    and Development could provide decisive assistance in
                                                                             interpreting Article 8 (2) d) of Directive 92/81, and
5.    And, order BP Chemicals Ltd to pay the costs of this
      appeal.                                                          —     The Court of First Instance failed to examine whether the
                                                                             interpretation it propounded of Article 8 (2) d) was itself
                                                                             plausible and failed to examine the plausibility of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              interpretation offered by the Commission in the Decision.
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred          (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997, p. 36.
in law in finding that it had exceeded its powers by adopting          (2) Not published in the Official Journal.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-98/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen): Christel Schmidt v. Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Social security - National rules against overlapping - Benefits of the same kind)

text:
14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 268/9
Mary Connell and Margaret Nicholas on the interpretation               persons and to members of their families moving within the
of Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of              Community, as amended and updated by Council
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( OJ No L 230, p . 6 ), and
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46a of that Regulation, as amended by
matters of social security ( OJ No L 6 , p . 24 ) — the Court          Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ( OJ No L 136 , p . 7 )
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler                     — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P. Jann,
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur )
C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                 and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 ,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              in which it rules :
11 August 1995 , in which it rules :
                                                                       a retirement pension granted under the legislation of one
where, pursuant to Article 7 ( 1 ) (a) of Council Directive            Member State, on the basis of periods of insurance
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive                        personally completed in that State by the person concerned,
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men             and a retirement pension obtained under the legislation of
and women in matters ofsocial security, a Member State has             another Member State by that person as a divorcee, on the
set the pensionable age for women at 60 and that for men at            basis of periods of insurance completed by that person's
65, that provision also allows it, first, to provide that the          former spouse, are not benefits of the same kind within the
rate of invalidity pension payable to persons becoming                 meaning of Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
incapacitated for work before they reach pensionable age is            of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
to be limited to the actual rate of retirement pension from            security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
the age of 60 in the case of women and from the age of 65 in           persons and to members of their families moving within the
the case of men and, second, to reserve entitlement to                 Community, as amended and updated by Council
invalidity allowance, paid in addition to invalidity pension,          Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, and
to those persons who are aged under 55, in the case of                 Articles 12 (2) and 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , as
women, and under 60, in the case of men, at the time when              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
they first become incapacitated for work .                             30 April 1992 .
 (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                     (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
 in Case C-98/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen ): Christel Schmidt v.                      in   Case   C-240/94 : Commission of the            European
                 Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen ( ] )                                        Communities v. Ireland (*)
  (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security —                      (Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of
 National rules against overlapping — Benefits of the same              Directives 89/336/EEC and 92/31/EEC — Electromagnetic
                                 kind)                                                            compatibility)
                            ( 95/C 268/18 )                                                       ( 95/C 268/ 19 )
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                                        (Language of the case: English)
  In Case C-98/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         In    Case   C-240/94 :      Commission    of the   European
  the EC Treaty by the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen                        Communities (agents: Thomas F. Cusack and David
  ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Mclntyre) against Ireland ( agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
  pending before that court between Christel Schmidt and                 application for a declaration that, by omitting to bring into
  Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen on the interpretation of                   force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
  Articles 12 ( 2 ) and 46 of Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/71 of            necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of
  the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social               3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
  security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                 Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility


title: Case C-62/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales), by order of that court of 14 December 1999, in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against the Commissioners of Customs & Excise

text:
29.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/15
Is the answer to the question referred different if the non-na-             Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Court of
tional spouse indirectly assists the national of a Member State             Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 18 February
in carrying on the provision of services in other Member States             2000, in the case of Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd against the
by carrying out childcare?                                                                          Scottish Ministers
                                                                                (Case C-64/00)
(1) of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on move and
    residence within the Community for nationals of Member States                                    (2000/C 122/27)
    with regard to establishment and the provision of services, OJ
    L 172, 28.06.1973. p. 14.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                            Scotland, of 18 February 2000, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd against the Scottish
                                                                            Ministers, on the following questions:
                                                                            1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
                                                                                93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak
                                                                                of a List 1 disease a Member State adopts a domestic
                                                                                measure the application of which results in the destruction
                                                                                and slaughter of fish, are the principles of Community
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                        law relating to the protection of fundamental rights in
(England & Wales), by order of that court of 14 December                         particular the right of property, to be interpreted as having
1999, in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against the                             placed on a Member State the obligation to adopt measures
              Commissioners of Customs & Excise                                  providing for the payment of compensation.
                                                                                (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and
                             (Case C-62/00)
                                                                                (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered
                                                                                immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale
                            (2000/C 122/26)                                          of those fish by that owner?
                                                                            2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                          court to determine whether the measures that are adopted
(England & Wales), of 14 December 1999, which was received                       are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
at the Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary                     the right to property, which the Court ensures and which
ruling in the case of Marks & Spencer plc against the                            derive in particular from the European Convention on
Commissioners of Customs & Excise on the following question:                     Human Rights?
                                                                            3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
In the circumstances in which a member State has failed to                       differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
implement properly in its domestic legislation Article 11. A of                  the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
Council Directive 77/388 (1), is it compatible with the principle                concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
of the effectiveness of the rights that a taxable person derives                 fault?
from Article 11.A, or with the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations, to enforce legislation which removes               4. Is Directive 93/53/EEC invalid as being in breach of the
with retrospective effect a right under national law to reclaim                  fundamental right of property in not making provision for
sums paid, by way of VAT, more than three years before the                       the payment of compensation to (a) an owner of fish
claim is made?                                                                   which are destroyed and (b) to an owner of fish which are
                                                                                required to be slaughtered immediately, thereby necessitat-
                                                                                ing the immediate sale of those fish by that owner
                                                                                in circumstances where an outbreak of ISA has been
(1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                confirmed?
    States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
    added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.06.1977,
    p. 1, rectificatif OJ L 149, 17.06.1977, p. 26.                         (1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC, of 24 June 1993, introducing
                                                                                minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish
                                                                                diseases OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.


title: Case C-347/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 15 July 2004 in the case of REWE Zentralfinanz e.G., as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH against Finanzamt Köln-Mitte

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 15 July 2004 in the case of REWE Zentralfinanz e.G., as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH against Finanzamt Köln-Mitte
   (Case C-347/04)
   (2004/C 273/21)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) (Germany) of 15 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of REWE Zentralfinanz e.G., as universal legal successor of ITS Reisen GmbH against Finanzamt Köln-Mitte on the following question:

               —

               Are Article 52 (now Article 43) in conjunction with Article 58 (now Article 48) and Articles 67-73 and 73b et seq. (now Article 56 et seq.) of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding a rule which — like the rule laid down in Paragraph 2a(1)(3)(a) and Paragraph 2a(2) of the Einkommensteuergesetz which is at issue in the main proceedings — restricts the immediate tax set-off of losses stemming from write-downs to the book value of subsidiaries in other EC countries, where those subsidiaries pursue passive activities within the meaning of the national provision and/or where the subsidiaries pursue active activities within the meaning of the national provision only through their own second-tier subsidiaries, whilst write-downs to the book value of domestic subsidiaries are possible without these restrictions?


title: Case T-302/10: Action brought on 15 July 2010 — Crocs v OHIM — Holey Soles and Partenaire Hospitalier International (Representation of footwear)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/19

         Action brought on 15 July 2010 — Crocs v OHIM — Holey Soles and Partenaire Hospitalier International (Representation of footwear)
   (Case T-302/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Delaware, USA) (represented by: I. R. Craig, Solicitor)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Holey Soles Holdings Ltd (Vancouver, Canada) and Partenaire Hospitalier International (La Haie Foissière, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2010 in case R 9/2008-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: No 257001-0001 (footwear)

      Proprietor of the Community design cited in the invalidity proceedings: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 7(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of these articles and was led to incorrect conclusions in relation to the novelty, the individual character and the technical function of the Community design.


title: Case C-117/02: Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 156/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma
                                                                        —     Declare that, by allowing the approval of a project in the
         GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                              tourist sector which included construction of housing,
                                                                              hotels and golf clubs in the Ponta do Abano area, without
                         (Case C-112/02)                                      an appropriate assessment of its environmental impact,
                                                                              the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of
                         (2002/C 156/07)                                      27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                              public and private projects on the environment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-
gericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrat-
ive Court of North Rhine-Westphalia) of 14 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2002, for a                  Pleas in law and main arguments
preliminary ruling in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany on the following question:
Is it justified under Article 30 EC or other Community law for          The Commission takes the view that the correct transposition
the competent German authority to obstruct the parallel                 of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC cannot
import of a medicinal product by refusing authorisation under           be relied upon by the Portuguese Republic in order to exempt
the simplified procedure, contrary to Article 28 EC, although           from the assessment obligation provided for in Article 2(1) a
on the one hand it accepts that the medicinal product to be             specific project which, as in the case of the project relating to
imported (Jumex), authorised for Chiese Farmaceutici S.p.A. in          work carried out in the area of Ponta do Abano, although
Italy, is as regards the medically active ingredient (Selegilinhy-      falling within the scope of Annex II to that directive, is likely
drochloride) identical to the medicinal product (Movergan)              to have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
produced by the German authorisation holder Orion Pharma                their nature, size or location.
GmbH, the medically active ingredient of which is delivered to
the Italian firm by the manufacturer, located in Hungary, on
the basis of a licensing agreement but to the German firm
solely on the basis of a supply agreement with Orion Corp.              (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
Finland, either directly or via Finland, if on the other hand the
German authority does not give, as regards the medically
active ingredient or the excipients, which the authorities
consider to differ both qualitatively and quantitatively in the
present case, reasons to show that the two medicinal products
are not identical, and in particular are not manufactured
according to the same formulation and using the same active
ingredient or that they have the same therapeutic effects?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                        by judgment of that Court of 27 March 2002 in the case
                                                                        of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee,
                                                                        also acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot
                                                                        Bescherming van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Land-
                                                                                bouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                              (Case C-127/02)
                             Republic
                                                                                (2002/C 156/09)
                         (Case C-117/02)
                         (2002/C 156/08)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
                                                                        (Council of State) of 27 March 2002, received at the Court
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            Registry on 8 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March            of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, also
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
represented by António Caeiros, acting as Agent, with an               van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuur-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      beheer en Visserij on the following questions:


title: Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-214/98)

text:
C 258/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
financial controls of insurance companies), the exceptions          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the freedom to provide services and the right of
establishment are those provided for by that directive and
not those which result from the application of Article 55           Ð find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the EC Treaty.                                                       under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
                                                                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
(1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                        comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
                                                                        19 November 1992 on rental and lending rights
                                                                        related to copyright in the field of intellectual
                                                                        property (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                                                                        Commission thereof,
Reference      for    a    preliminary    ruling    by    the
                                                                        and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 31 March
 1998 in case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknappschaft
                       (Case C-211/98)
                                                                    Ð order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                        (98/C 258/37)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozial-
gericht (Federal Social Court) of 31 March 1998, received
                                                                    Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
at the Court Registry on 8 June 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                    be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
ruling in the case of Ramazan Örs against Bundesknapp-
                                                                    Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
schaft (Federal Insurance Fund for Miners) on the
                                                                    Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
following questions:
                                                                    down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1994
                                                                    without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
1. Is there, on the basis of the law relating to the                comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
    Association between the European Economic                       the Commission and/or informing the Commission
    Community        and     Turkey,   a    prohibition    of       thereof.
    discrimination in the field of social security which is
    directly applicable to a Turkish worker in the Federal          (1) OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
    Republic of Germany?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is that
    prohibition to be interpreted as precluding a national
    provision under which the applicable date of birth for
    statutory pension insurance benefits and for the
    insurance number assigned in that regard is the date            Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of
    which was documented when the Turkish worker was                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    first registered with a national social benefit
    institution?                                                                           (Case C-214/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/39)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice on 10 June 1998 by the
Action brought on 9 June 1998 by the Commission of the              Commission of the European Communities, represented
           European Communities against Ireland                     by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
                       (Case C-213/98)                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                        (98/C 258/38)                               Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by               The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Ð by failing to refer to the category of solipeds/equidae
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its                   in the list of meat to which the fees laid down by
Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                    Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) apply,
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/25
Ð by laying down the amounts of the fees to be collected           meat are carried out does not comply with Directive 93/
    for health controls on the slaughter of animals and            118/EC with regard to points 1, 2 and 5 of Chapter 1 of
    those connected with cutting operations at 50 % of the         the annex to that directive.
    standard Community rates, without giving a reason
    for the reduction in accordance with the requirements
                                                                   (1) OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 15.
    of Chapter 1 of the annex to the Directive,
Ð by exempting poultry meat from the fees for the
    cutting of fresh meat,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         Action brought on 11 June 1998 by the Commission of
under the Treaty and Council Directive 93/118/EC of                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                                      (Case C-216/98)
financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
and poultry meat, in particular points 1, 2 and 5 of                                        (98/C 258/40)
Chapter 1 of the annex to that Directive.
                                                                   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                before the Court of Justice on 11 June 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                   by Maria Kondou-Durande and Enrico Traversa, of its
Having made a comparative examination of Presidential              Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Decree No 34 pursuant to which Decision 88/408/EEC                 at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
and the requirements of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC           Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
were transposed, the Commission considers that the
provisions of that Decree do not conform to Community
law for the following reasons:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
As regards the fees which should be collected for slaughter
inspections, the Greek legislation in question fails to refer      Ð declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force
to the category of solipeds/equidae. That fact constitutes             legislative provisions which require minimum retail
an infringement of point 1(b) of Chapter 1 of the annex to             selling prices for manufactured tobacco to be fixed by
Directive 93/118/EC.                                                   ministerial decisions has not complied with its
                                                                       obligations under Article 9 of Directive 95/59/EC (1) of
                                                                       27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes
                                                                       which affect the consumption of manufactured
The amounts of the fees to be collected for health controls            tobacco;
on the slaughter of animals correspond to 50 % of the
standard Community amounts, although the requirements
laid down in point 5 of the annex are not satisfied. That
fact constitutes an infringement of point 1 of Chapter 1 of        Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the annex, in conjunction with point 5.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the fee to be collected in respect of the cutting
of fresh meat, Article 34 of the Presidential Decree
exempts poultry from that fee, although provision is made          Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC, which
for such a fee in the Community rules. That fact gives rise        corresponds to Article 5(1) of Directive 72/464/EEC, lays
to a case of infringement in relation to point 2 of                down the principle of the producer's or importer's
Chapter 1 of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC.                     freedom to determine retail selling prices for manufactured
                                                                   tobacco and requires the Member States as far as possible
                                                                   not to influence the formation of prices.
The fees applied for controls connected with cutting
operations are less than the Community fees, although the
requirements laid down by point 2 of Chapter 1 of the              According to Article 45 of Greek Law No 2127 of 5 April
annex to Directive 93/118/EC, in conjunction with point 5,         1993 on the harmonisation with Community law of the
are not satisfied.                                                 tax regime on petrol products, alcohol and alcoholic
                                                                   drinks and manufactured tobacco, retail selling prices for
                                                                   manufactured tobacco consumed within the country are to
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers            be determined freely by tobacco manufacturers. The
that the Greek legislation on fees to be collected when            Minister for Finance is to fix by decision the minimum
health controls and inspections of fresh meat and poultry          retail selling prices for those products, which are to be at


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-51/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata): Massimo Triumbari v Questore di Potenza (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
14.7.2001                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/31
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000
                                                                                of 19 January 2001
in Case C-51/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata):                      in Case C-390/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         Massimo Triumbari v Questore di Potenza (1)                            the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano):
                                                                                Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale
                                                                                Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                                                                                (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
                             (2001/C 200/55)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/56)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-51/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                        In Case C-390/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
between Massimo Triumbari and Questore di Potenza (inter-                       EC from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano
veners: Ministro delle Finanze, Ministro dell’Interno) on the                   (Bari District Court, Rutigliano Division) for a preliminary
interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                       Giovanni Colapietro and Ispettorato Generale Repressione
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet                      Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole — on the
(Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate                     Community rules on compulsory distillation — the Court
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 Decem-                    (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                            President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric
                                                                                and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 January
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  2001, in which it has ruled:
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   There is no need to give a reply to the questions submitted by the
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  19 September 2000.
objectives.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 October 1997 in Case C-157/94: Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by French Republic and Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Exclusive rights to import electricity for public distribution)

text:
20 . 12 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 387/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  1 . dismisses the application;
                      of 23 October 1997
in Case C-157/94: Commission of the European                          2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great                          to pay the costs;
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Kingdom of the
Netherlands, supported by French Republic and Ireland (')             3 . orders the interveners, the United Kingdom of Great
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and
Exclusive rights to import electricity for public                          Ireland, to bear their own costs.
                           distribution)
                                                                      o OJ C 202, 23 . 7 . 1994 .
                         ( 97/C 387/01 )
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                          of 23 October 1997
                                                                      in Case C-158/94: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great
In Case C-157/94 : Commission of the European                         Britain and Northern Ireland v. Italian Republic,
Communities ( Agents : Richard B. Wainwright and Berend                       supported by French Republic and Ireland ( 1 )
J. Drijber), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted by             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligation —
David Anderson ) v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents:                     Exclusive rights to import and export electricity)
Adrian Bos, Jaap W. de Zwaan and Johannes S. van den                                           ( 97/C 387/02 )
Oosterkamp ), supported by French Republic ( Agents :
Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), Ireland
( Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke                                (Language of the case: Italian)
and Jennifer Payne ) — application for a declaration that,
by granting exclusive import rights for electricity intended
for public distribution, the Kingdom of the Netherlands                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 37                   published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón                        In    Case    C-158/94 :    Commission     of the    European
( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,             Communities (Agents: Richard B. Wainwright and
D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G.                 Antonio Aresu ), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll,
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  assisted by David Anderson ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent:
Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,              Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo M. Braguglia ),
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October                 supported by French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins
1997, in which it:                                                    and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), Ireland ( Agent: Michael A.


title: Case T-472/16: Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/21

         Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)
   (Case T-472/16)
   (2016/C 383/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LegalPro’ — Application No 13 954 177

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in Case R 146/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-54/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/18

         Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350)
   (Case C-54/10 P)
   2010/C 113/27
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.
   The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 15 January 1998 in Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 94/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.3.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, for a
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Northern Ireland Fish Producers'
                     of 19 February 1998                             Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland
       in Case C-309/95: Commission of the European                  Fishermen's Federation and Department of Agriculture for
       Communities v. Council of the European Union,                 Northern Ireland Ð on the validity of Council Regulation
             supported by the French Republic (1)                    (EC) No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
                                                                     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable
   (Exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France)            catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which they
                         (98/C 94/07)                                may be fished (OJ L 363, 31.12.1994, p. 1), on the
                                                                     validity of Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                     1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague and on the
                (Language of the case: French)                       interpretation of the priniciple of State liability for damage
                                                                     occasioned to individuals by breaches of Community law
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð the Court: composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
          published in the European Court Reports)                   President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
In Case 309/95: Commission of the European
                                                                     Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Jean-Paul
                                                                     Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Keppenne) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Rüdiger Bandilla and Diego Canga Fano), supported by
                                                                     19 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
the French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and
FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for the annulment of the
Council's decision of 22 June 1995 on the granting of                1. The validity of the allocation of cod and whiting
exceptional aid to producers of table wine in France Ð                    quotas in Area VIIa by Council Regulation (EC)
the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                     No 3362/94 of 20 December 1994 fixing, for certain
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total
(Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.                      allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                  under which they may be fished is not dependent on
a judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:                              whether Annex VII to the resolution of 3 November
                                                                          1976 adopted by the Council at The Hague was
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                             properly adopted.
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs;                           2. Consideration of Regulation (EC) No 3362/94 has
                                                                          revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect its
3. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                      validity.
(1) OJ C 315, 25.11.1995.                                            (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 19 February 1998                                                    (First Chamber)
in Case C-4/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's
Bench Division): Northern Ireland Fish Producers'                    in Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH v.
Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and Northern Ireland                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
Fishermen's Federation v. Department of Agriculture for
                     Northern Ireland (1)                                            (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
(Fisheries Ð Hague Preferences Ð TACs Ð Cod and                                               (98/C 94/09)
whiting Ð Discretion of the Community legislature Ð
Relative stability Ð Principles of proportionality and non-                         (Language of the case: German)
                        discrimination)
                         (98/C 94/08)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: English)                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-4/96: reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C-196/97 P: Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH, a
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice in                   company incorporated under German law, established in
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/5
Emden (Germany), represented by Detlef Schumacher and                1. The appeal is dismissed.
Wilhelm Wiltfang, Rechtsanwalt Ð appeal against the
order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of
19 February 1997 in Case T-117/96 Intertronic v.                     2. Mr Abello and Others and Mr Riesch shall pay the
Commission [1997] ECR II-141, seeking to have that                       costs.
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Klaus                 (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
Wiedner) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M.
Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 15 January
1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     Action brought on 22 December 1997 by the Commission
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-434/97)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                                 (98/C 94/11)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                     An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     22 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard and Enrico
                                                                     Traversa, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     of 5 February 1998
in Case C-30/96 P: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others,
Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of the European                         Ð declare that, by maintaining in force legislative
Communities, supported by Council of the Euroepan                        provisions under which beverages with an alcohol
                           Union (1)                                     content exceeding 25 % vol. are subject to a special
                                                                         contribution calculated per decilitre or parts thereof,
(Officials Ð Pay slips Ð Weightings Ð Regulations (EEC)                  the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
No 3761/92, (EEC) No 3765/92 and (EEC) No 3766/92                        under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1)
                  Ð Plea of inadmissibility)                             of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for
                                                                         products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
                         (98/C 94/10)                                    movement and monitoring of such products, read in
                                                                         conjunction with Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2) of
                                                                         19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic
                                                                         beverages,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
In Case 30/96 P: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gerhard Riesch (Agents: Michele Tamburini and Franco
Colussi) Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of               Failure to fulfil obligations under Directive 92/12/EEC
First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth                   inasmuch as the French social security' contribution:
Chamber) of 7 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-544/93
and T-566/93 Abello and Others v. Commission [1995]
ECR-SC II-815, seeking to have that judgment set aside,              Ð is calculated per decilitre of beverage and not by
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of                  reference to the quantity of pure alcohol contained in
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia,                     the beverage in question,
assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro), supported by Council of
the European Union (Agent: Anna Lo Monaco) Ð the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                   Ð applies to beverages with an alcohol content exceeding
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and                  25 % vol, whereas the Community customs duty
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R.                   category of ethyl alcohol (Article 20 of Directive 92/
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 February 1998, the                  83/EEC) covers products with an alcohol content
operative part of which is as follows:                                   exceeding 22 % vol.


title: Removal from the register of C-363/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-273/11: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France in favour of radio broadcasting — Decision not to raise objections — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/22

         Order of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission
   (Case T-273/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France in favour of radio broadcasting - Decision not to raise objections - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 189/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Régie Networks (Lyon, France) and NRJ Global (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Geneste and C. Vannini, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6483 final of 29 September 2010 concerning the State aid scheme No C-4/2009 (ex N 679/97) implemented by the [French Republic] to promote radio broadcasting and declaring that scheme compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Régie Networks and NRJ Global shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-286/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2016 — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2016 — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
   (Case C-286/16)
   (2016/C 296/26)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Exmitiani SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the disputed administrative measure was adopted before the accession [of the Republic of Romania to the European Union] and the appeal against that measure was decided on by provision of the tax authorities after the accession, does the principle of cooperation in good faith imply that national legislation is to be interpreted in the light of the EU directives applicable to VAT? (1)

               2.

               Having regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, is the principle of legal certainty to be interpreted as precluding the practice of tax authorities whereby, on the basis of the same factual circumstances, those authorities reach different conclusions from those reached by the prosecution authorities as regards the exemption from VAT of the provision of services directly connected with international passenger transport?

               3.

               Is the principle of cooperation in good faith to be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation which provides that, where pleas based on provisions of EU law are not raised in an appeal against an administrative measure, such pleas may not be raised subsequently before the courts?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-421/05: Action brought on  3 November 2005  — Kay v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/36

         Action brought on 3 November 2005 — Kay v Commission
   (Case T-421/05)
   (2006/C 48/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Roderick Neil Kay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 31 January 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was an official of the Commission in grade B*7. After passing the external competition COM/A/3/02, he was appointed by the contested decision to an administrator post in grade A*6.
   By his action, the applicant disputes his classification, submitting that he should have been classified in one of the grades A*8, A*9 or A*10. He also disputes the loss of all his promotion points, constituting his ‘rucksack’, following his reclassification.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which he considers applicable to his situation, instead of Article 5(2) of that annex, which the Commission applied. In addition, he pleads breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, protection of acquired rights and equal treatment between officials.


title: Case T-451/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2017 — AlzChem v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination — Overriding public interest)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2017 — AlzChem v Commission
   (Case T-451/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a specific and individual examination - Overriding public interest))
   (2017/C 357/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented: initially by A. Borsos and J. Guerrero-Pérez, and subsequently by A. Borsos, J. Guerrero-Pérez and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, M. Konstantinidis and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 26 May 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AlzChem AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-385/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappĳ O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and 2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappĳ Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen

text:
C 20/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communi-                     3. Does the question whether the treatment as a whole or
ties, in which the Commission was requested to produce a                       only a proportion thereof involved in-patient care affect
certified true copy of certain minutes.                                        the answers to these questions?
                                                                          (1) — To ensure that provision of medical care by doctors and in
By order of 4 October 1999, the Court of Justice (Third                           hospitals is balanced and accessible to all.
Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and                  — To maintain the principle of benefits in kind applied in the
ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Netherlands.
                                                                              — To ensure the financial equilibrium of the Netherlands social
                                                                                security scheme.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de
                                                                          Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
                                                                          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                   European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in                    cova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European
the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge                                                      Union
Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and
2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschap-
                  pij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen                                                      (Case C-388/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/16)
                          (Case C-385/99)
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2000/C 20/15)                                 Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and
                                                                          31 Others and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia, represented by
European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van                    Vı́ctor M. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, Creus Carreras, of the
Beroep [Higher Social Security Court] of 6 October 1999,                  Santiago de Compostela Bar, with an address for service at the
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                  Fundación Galicia-Europa, Avenue Milcamps 105 B, 1030
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Fauré against           Brussels.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen
U.A. and 2. E.E.M. van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaat-              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
schappij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen on the following questions:
                                                                          1) Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July
                                                                               1999 in Case T-194/95 by reason of all or any of the
1. Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49                    defects indicated and draw from the setting aside of that
     and 50 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that in principle                 order all legal consequences, either giving judgment on the
     a provision such as Article 9(4) of the Ziekenfondswet                    substance or referring the matter back to the Court of First
     [Law on Health Insurance], read in conjunction with                       Instance;
     Article 1 of the Regeling hulp in het buitenland zieken-
     fondsverzekering [Regulation on health care abroad under             2) Order the defendant before the Court of First Instance of
     the sickness insurance rules], is incompatible therewith in               the European Communities to pay the costs, at the same
     so far as it stipulates that in order to assert his entitlement           time giving a decision on the order for costs made against
     to benefits a person insured with a health insurance fund                 the defendant in the matter at first instance in the event of
     requires the prior authorisation of that fund to seek                     the present appeal being upheld wholly or in part.
     treatment from a person or establishment outside the
     Netherlands with whom or which the health insurance
     fund has not concluded an agreement?                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — Infringement of Community law involving misapplication
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, do              and misinterpretation of Article 230 (previously 173) as
     the objectives of the Netherlands system of benefits in kind              regards rejection of the allegation of misuse of powers
     referred to above (1) constitute an overriding reason in the              vitiating the contested regulation since there is a total
     general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the               divergence between the ostensible aim thereof and the aim
     fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?                     really pursued by its adoption.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Case C-438/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/7
3. Does Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty preclude a                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) of
    provision exempting the sale of wine direct from the             18 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
    vineyard from beverage duty?'                                    29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Finance Office
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                        for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the
                                                                     following questions:
                                                                     1. Do Article 73b in conjunction with Article 73d (in
                                                                         particular, Article 73d(3)) of the EC Treaty and
Reference      for    a     preliminary    ruling    by    the           Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of               88/361/EEC (1) concerning the movement of capital
10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger                        preclude the continued application of the first sentence
Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann                         of the fourth subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8 of
Schachtner,       Konrad       Sonnleitner      and     Ulrich           the 1957 Gebührengesetz (Law on Stamp Duties,
Muckenschnabel           against      the        Unabhängiger            hereinafter the GebG', in the version published in
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party:                  BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) 818/1993), which
       Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                       provides that, where a loan granted by a lender who
                                                                         neither resides in Austria nor maintains his habitual
                       (Case C-438/97)
                                                                         abode, his head office or his seat there is not recorded
                         (98/C 72/12)                                    in an instrument giving rise to liability to pay stamp
                                                                         duty, the books and records which are maintained by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the debtor in accordance with the national rules on
European        Communities        by     order      of    the           taxes and duties and in which the loan is recorded are
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, of               to be deemed to constitute the relevant document?
10 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals            2. Does the taxation of loans (in so far as they result in a
brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf                         flow of capital from one Member State to another)
Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and                     under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8
Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger                           GebG constitute arbitrary discrimination or a
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent                        concealed restriction on the free movement of capital
Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg),                          and payments within the meaning of Article 73b of
Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und                    the Treaty?
Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science and Transport) on
the following question:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 5.
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable        Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                    Spain against Commission of the European Communities
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                         (Case C-443/97)
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a                                          (98/C 72/14)
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities on 23 December 1997 by the
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de
                                                                     Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian                 E. Servais.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of
18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v.
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          Burgenland
                       (Case C-439/97)                               1. annul the Commission Guidelines of 15 October 1997
                         (98/C 72/13)                                    relating to the net financial adjustments pursuant to
                                                                         Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1); and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Austrian                    2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.