title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrakopoulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko Dimosio (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to all persons providing services, irrespective of their nationality, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community transport and transport to third countries)

text:
21.12.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 323/17
2.    On a proper construction of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/                directive does not depend on the main purpose of those contracts
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, if the                   and is to be made in accordance with the unequivocal test laid
      grant of a benefit such as the home child-care allowance in the              down by Article 10 of that directive.
      main proceedings depends on the child’s actual residence in the
      territory of the competent Member State, that condition must           2.    In the award of a contract with a single object but composed of
      be held to be satisfied where the child resides in the territory of          several services, the classification of those services in Annexes I A
      another Member State.                                                        and I B to Directive 92/50, far from depriving it of its
                                                                                effectiveness, is in accordance with the system laid down by the
                                                                                directive. When, following the classification thus made by
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                       reference to the nomenclature of the United Nations Common
                                                                                Product Classification, the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I B exceeds the value of the services falling within
                                                                                Annex I A, there is no obligation on the part of the contracting
                                                                                authority to separate from the contract in question the services
                                                                                referred to in Annex I B and to award separate contracts in
                                                                                respect of them.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      3.    It is for the national court to determine the regime applicable to
                                                                                the contract forming the object of the procedure at issue in the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         main proceedings on the basis of Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                                50, in particular by verifying that the services which make up
                                                                                that contract and the reference numbers of the nomenclature of
                       of 14 November 2002                                         the United Nations Common Product Classification correspond.
                                                                                In any case, Category 20 of Annex I B to Directive 92/50
in Case C-411/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                               cannot be interpreted as also including land transport services
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Felix Swoboda GmbH v                                   in themselves, as they are explicitly covered by Category 2 of
                Österreichische Nationalbank (1),                                  Annex I A to the Directive.
(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Scope                      (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
ratione materiae — Moving offices of a central bank —
Contract relating to both services listed in Annex I A to
Directive 92/50 and services listed in Annex I B to that
directive — Predominance in value terms of services listed in
                              Annex I B)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2002/C 323/20)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                   of 14 November 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-435/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou ): Geha Naftiliaki EPE,
                                                                             Total Scope NE, Stavros Georgiou, Charalambis Bros
                                                                             OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos Sarlis, Dimitrios
                                                                             Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios Dimitrako-
In Case C-411/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   poulos v NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou, Elliniko
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                               Dimosio (1)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Felix
Swoboda GmbH and Österreichische Nationalbank, on the                        (Transport — Maritime transport — Freedom to provide
interpretation of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June                     services — Restriction — National legislation applicable to
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                      all persons providing services, irrespective of their national-
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),                     ity, that distinguishes between domestic or intra-Community
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                              transport and transport to third countries)
dent of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,                                             (2002/C 323/21)
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The determination of the regime applicable to public service                                in the European Court Reports)
      contracts composed partly of services falling within Annex I A
      to Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         In Case C-435/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      contracts and partly of services falling within Annex I B to the       EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Rodou (Greece) for a prelimi-
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/18                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                             of 24 October 2002
transport between Member States and between Member States
and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
                                                                             workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
                                                                             appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
                                                                                sition)
1.    Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
      22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
                                                                                (2002/C 323/22)
      provide services to maritime transport between Member States
      and between Member States and third countries precludes the
      application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
      domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member State and a third country if that difference is not
      objectively justified.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
      final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
      dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
      destination is domestic or in another Member State, without            In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
      there being any correlation between that difference and the cost       (agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,     by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
      amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services            declaration that:
      contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
                                                                                workers who use display screen equipment for the
                                                                                purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
3.    Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the                       of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
      imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour             requirements for work with display screen equipment
      dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of             (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the          Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
      dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way                  p. 14);
      passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
      place from which they have come.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
                                                                                examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
                                                                                tests show that this is necessary; and
                                                                             —     by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                         workers concerned are to be provided with special
                                                                                corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
                                                                             President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                             Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)


title: Case C-270/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — MacDonald Resorts Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemptions — Article 13(B)(b) — Letting of immovable property — Sale of contractual rights convertible into usage rights for timeshare holiday accommodation)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh — United Kingdom) — MacDonald Resorts Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-270/09) (1)

   (VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemptions - Article 13(B)(b) - Letting of immovable property - Sale of contractual rights convertible into usage rights for timeshare holiday accommodation)
   2011/C 55/14
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session (Scotland), Edinburgh

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MacDonald Resorts Limited

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Session (Scotland) — Interpretation of Articles 9(2)(a) and 13B(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of exemption for leasing or letting of immovable property — Sale, by a timeshare club, of points giving the right to use holiday accommodation during a given year on a part-time basis

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Supplies of services effected by an operator such as the applicant in the main proceedings under a scheme such as the ‘Options Scheme’ at issue in the main proceedings must be classified at the time when the customer participating in such a scheme converts the rights he initially acquired into a service offered by that operator. Where those rights are converted into hotel accommodation or into a right to temporarily use a property, those supplies are supplies of services connected with immovable property within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, which are performed at the place where the hotel or that property is situated.

               2.

               Under a scheme such as the ‘Options Scheme’ at issue in the main proceedings, when the customer converts the rights he initially acquired into a right to temporarily use a property, the supply of services concerned constitutes the letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2001/115 (now Article 135(1)(l) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 December 2006 on the common system of value added tax). However, that provision does not prevent Member States from excluding that supply from exemption.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-680/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/25

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.
   (Case T-680/13)
   2014/C 194/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 50 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

               —

               Find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

               —

               Determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants (51 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.
   The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.
   The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.


title: Case C-197/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 148 — Exemption of certain transactions intended for vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial activities — Condition that the vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/14

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-197/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148 - Exemption of certain transactions intended for vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial activities - Condition that the vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas)
   2013/C 156/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J.-S. Pilczer and D. Colas, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 148(a), (c) and (d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemption of certain transactions intended for vessels carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial activities — Condition that the vessels must be used for navigation on the high seas — Compatibility of a national measure which impermissibly extends the exemptions provided for by the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not making the exemption from value added tax of transactions referred to in Article 262, Part II(2), (3), (6) and (7), of the Code général des impôts conditional on the requirement of use for navigation on the high seas, in respect of vessels carrying passengers for reward and those used for the purpose of commercial activities, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 148(a), (c) and (d) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-497/09, C-499/09, C-501/09 and C-502/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Burgdorf (C-497/09), CinemaxX Entertainment GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG (C-499/09), Lothar Lohmeyer (C-501/09), Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG (C-502/09) v Manfred Bog (C-497/09), Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (C-499/09), Finanzamt Minden (C-501/09), Finanzamt Detmold (C-502/09) (Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Articles 5 and 6 — Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ — Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars — Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption — Party catering service — Annex H, category 1 — Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’ )

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Burgdorf (C-497/09), CinemaxX Entertainment GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG (C-499/09), Lothar Lohmeyer (C-501/09), Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG (C-502/09) v Manfred Bog (C-497/09), Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (C-499/09), Finanzamt Minden (C-501/09), Finanzamt Detmold (C-502/09)
   (Joined Cases C-497/09, C-499/09, C-501/09 and C-502/09) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 5 and 6 - Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ - Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars - Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption - Party catering service - Annex H, category 1 - Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’)
   2011/C 130/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Finanzamt Burgdorf (C-497/09), CinemaxX Entertainment GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Hans-Joachim Flebbe Filmtheater GmbH & Co. KG (C-499/09), Lothar Lohmeyer (C-501/09), Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG (C-502/09)

      Defendants: Manfred Bog (C-497/09), Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (C-499/09), Finanzamt Minden (C-501/09), Finanzamt Detmold (C-502/09)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 5 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and the term ‘foodstuffs’ in Annex H to that directive — Whether a particular commercial activity is to be regarded as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ — Sale of food (sausages, chips etc.) from a van for immediate consumption

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 5 and 6 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the supply of food or meals freshly prepared for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars or in cinema foyers is a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 if a qualitative examination of the entire transaction shows that the elements of supply of services preceding and accompanying the supply of the food are not predominant;

                           —

                           except in cases in which a party catering service does no more than deliver standard meals without any additional elements of supply of services, or in which other special circumstances show that the supply of the food represents the predominant element of a transaction, the activities of a party catering service are supplies of services within the meaning of Article 6.

               2.

               In cases of the supply of goods, the term ‘foodstuffs’ in category 1 of Annex H to the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as also covering food and meals which have been prepared for immediate consumption by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-67/04: Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/21

         Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-67/04)
   (2004/C 94/45)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 27 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ No L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-17/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 January 2012 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 January 2012 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-17/12)
   2012/C 98/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the screening tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers in its capacity as tax substitute, in accordance with Article 50(1) of Decree-Law 227/2006, come within the concept of VAT taxable amount, within the meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC (2) of 28 November 2006) as it constitutes ‘the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for such supplies’?

               2.

               Does the advertising tax charged by the appellant to the advertisers, in its capacity as tax substitute, and which is recorded in its accounts in a third party account, constitute an amount ‘received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which [is] entered in his books in a suspense account’ within the meaning of Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EEC of 28 November 2006?

               3.

               Consequently, should these amounts charged by the appellant in respect of screening tax be included in the taxable base for the purposes of VAT?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment — OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

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


C 20/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.1.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-11/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-306/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/58)                                                          (2000/C 20/61)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-11/96: Donald George Gage and David John Gage v                  Case T-306/97: M.C. Lewis, M.A. Lewis and D.C. Lewis v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities.                                                   European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-304/97 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-90/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/59)                                                          (2000/C 20/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the First
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-90/98: Assidomän Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesund
Case T-304/97: W.J.C. Hilsdon v Council of the European                 Bruk, Korsnäs AB, Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora
Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-305/97 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-135/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/63)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 22 October 1999, the Court of First Instance of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                the European Communities (single judge) has ordered the
Case T-305/97: Jimmy Hull v Council of the European Union               removal from the register of Case T-135/98: Elaine Spence v
and Commission of the European Communities.                             Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2002 in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha): Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, production and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to comply with the time-limits for making declarations — Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)

text:
7.12.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 305/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
                         of 17 October 2002
                                                                              in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-79/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha):
the Corte d’appello di Milano): Payroll Data Services                         Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería
        (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA ( 1)                        de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comuni-
                                                                                dades de Castilla-La Mancha ( 1)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                     (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine
           Activity of preparing and printing pay slips)
                                                                              sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, pro-
                                                                              duction and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to
                                                                              comply with the time-limits for making declarations —
                            (2002/C 305/06)                                       Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                                                    (2002/C 305/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(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-79/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              In Case C-208/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
in the non-contentious proceedings (giurisdizione volontaria)
                                                                              EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
brought before that court by Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl,
                                                                              (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA, on the interpretation of
                                                                              before that court between Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                              Medina and Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                              la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha on the
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
                                                                              interpretation of Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                              No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                              application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                              harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-
                                                                              sector products (OJ 1996 L 166, p. 14), the Court (First
                                                                              Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Cham-
Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes               ber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
legislation of a Member State which requires undertakings with less           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
than 250 employees which wish to entrust the preparation and                  on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
printing of their pay slips to data-processing centres to have recourse
only to those established staffed exclusively by persons registered with
certain professional associations in that Member State if, under that         On a proper construction of Article 12 of Commission Regulation
legislation, undertakings with more than 250 employees may entrust            (EC) No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
such activities to data-processing centres on the sole condition that         application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
they are assisted by one or more such persons.                                harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-sector
                                                                              products:
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                    —     the concept of ‘force majeure’ referred to therein is not limited to
                                                                                absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of
                                                                                abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the oper-
                                                                                ator’s control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise
                                                                                of all due care, could not have been avoided;
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
—     it is for the operator to prove that the conditions necessary for a    under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue
      case of force majeure to exist have been satisfied and for the         of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195,
      national court to verify the facts alleged and to determine            p. 42) and on the interpretation of Community law, in
      whether, having regard to the circumstances, the operators took        particular Article 30 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
      every care that could have been expected of them to observe the        guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
      time-limits for making the declaration provided for by the             R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      Community legislation;                                                 D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
                                                                             S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
—     the sudden death of the sole director of a family holding in the       Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      form of community of property (‘comunidad de bienes’), who             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      was connected to the members of that community by close                22 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
      family ties, may, in principle, be regarded as a case of force
      majeure.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                             1.    A Member State which is an addressee of Commission Decision
                                                                                98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 amending Decision 98/
                                                                                256/EC as regards certain emergency measures to protect
                                                                                against bovine spongiform encephalopathy and of Commission
                                                                                Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
                                                                                which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products
                                                                                under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of
                                                                                Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC and which has
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           not challenged the legality of those decisions within the time-
                                                                                limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC does
                                                                                not have standing subsequently before a national court to invoke
                         of 22 October 2002                                        their unlawfulness in order to dispute the merits of an action
                                                                                brought against it.
in Case C-241/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): National Farmers’ Union v Secrétariat
                    général du gouvernement (1)
                                                                             2.    Since Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
                                                                                concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopa-                            view to the completion of the internal market and Decision 98/
thy — Decisions 98/692/EC and 1999/514/EC ending the                               256, as amended by Decision 98/692, lay down the rules
ban on beef and veal from the United Kingdom — Whether                             necessary for the protection of public health upon the resumption
a Member State to which those decisions are addressed may                          of exports of beef and veal from the United Kingdom to the
challenge the legality thereof after the time-limit for bringing                   other Member States, lay down a Community procedure to
proceedings has expired or invoke Article 30 EC to justify its                     monitor compliance with that decision and a procedure for
                        refusal to end the ban)                                    amending it in the light of new scientific information and
                                                                                provide the appropriate legal framework for the adoption of
                                                                                interim protective measures by a Member State of destination
                            (2002/C 305/08)
                                                                                for the purpose of protecting public health, a Member State is
                                                                                not entitled to invoke Article 30 EC in order to prevent the
                      (Language of the case: French)                               resumption of imports to its territory of beef and veal from the
                                                                                United Kingdom which were carried out in accordance with
                                                                                Decisions 98/256, as amended by Decision 98/692, and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             1999/514.
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-241/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in                (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
the proceedings pending before that court between National
Farmers’ Union and Secrétariat général du gouvernement, on
the validity of Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 Novem-
ber 1998 amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (OJ 1998 L 328, p. 28) and of Commission
Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 35, 7.2.2004

text:
21.2.2004         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 47/41
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2004/C 47/75)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 35, 7.2.2004
          Past publications
          OJ C 21, 24.1.2004
          OJ C 7, 10.1.2004
          OJ C 304, 13.12.2003
          OJ C 289, 29.11.2003
          OJ C 275, 15.11.2003
          OJ C 264, 1.11.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-5/08: Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Brune v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/69

         Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Brune v Commission
   (Case F-5/08)
   (2008/C 64/113)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Markus Brune (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the defendant's decision not to place the applicant on the reserve list for EPSO Competition AD/26/05 by reason of his obtaining an inadequate number of points.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007, and its decision of 2 October 2007 rejecting the complaint, in which it declared the reserve list for EPSO Competition AD/26/05 void;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007, and its decision of 2 October 2007 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to place the applicant on EPSO reserve list AD/26/05;

               —

               In the further alternative, annul the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007, and its decision of 2 October 2007 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to fix a new date, with adequate preparation time, for the applicant to take the oral test and to asses the possibility of his being placed on the reserve list on the basis of appropriate criteria;

               —

               Order the defendant to state the grounds for its decision of 10 May 2007 and to permit the minutes of the oral test held on 6 March 2007 to be examined;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               As a precautionary measure, deliver judgment in default.


title: Case C-554/08 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2008 by Le Carbone Lorraine against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2008 in Case T-73/04 Le Carbone Lorraine v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/35

         Appeal brought on 17 December 2008 by Le Carbone Lorraine against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2008 in Case T-73/04 Le Carbone Lorraine v Commission
   (Case C-554/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Le Carbone Lorraine (represented by: A. Winckler and H. Kanellopoulos, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside, in part, under Article 225(1) EC and Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 in Case T-73/04 Le Carbone Lorraine v Commission;

               —

               allow the claims submitted by Le Carbone Lorraine at first instance and, consequently, on the basis of Article 229 EC, Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 17 of Council Regulation No 17/62 (1), now Article 31 of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (2), reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Le Carbone Lorraine by the Commission in its decision of 3 December 2003 in Case C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products (3);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender in that it held that the Commission was not required to assess individually the various elements of the infringement, since there was a single infringement and an overall strategy shared by all the members of the cartel. In the absence of a definition of the relevant product markets or of the categories of products in question, such an overall assessment of the infringement leads to the amount of the fine being set without regard for the actual infringement specifically committed by each member of the cartel.
   By its second plea, the appellant asserts that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the Commission's decision in that it held that the Commission had taken account of the actual impact of the cartel on the market in question in order to determine the amount of the fine, despite the fact that the Commission itself had stated, both in its decision of 3 December 2003, and at the hearing before the Court of First Instance, that that impact could not be determined with any precision. The infringement was classified as ‘very serious’ on the sole ground of its type and geographical scope.
   By its third plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment in that it upheld the Commission's refusal to grant the appellant an additional reduction in the amount of the fine based on the leniency notice, despite the fact that that reduction had been granted additionally to two other companies, which are competitors of the appellant. The close and sustained cooperation of the appellant in the course of the proceedings was, therefore, not sufficiently taken into account and recompensed by the Court of First Instance.
   By its fourth and final plea, Carbone Lorraine objects to the breaches, by the Court of First Instance, of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in that it held that the appellant could not benefit from a reduction in the amount of the fine on the basis of the serious financial difficulties which it was facing, despite the fact that that same factor was held to be sufficient to reduce the fine imposed on another competing company.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 17/62 of 7 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 125, p. 45.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00) v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 171/3
relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct                    those Treaty provisions. It is for the referring court to determine
insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as                      whether that scheme is in fact justified by social policy objectives
amended by Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June                          and to examine, in particular, whether the cover provided by
1988 (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                             that compulsory insurance scheme is proportionate to those
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                                objectives.
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                    4.    The term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 92 of the
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                        EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) does not
given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                            cover a body such as the Organismos Ellenikon Georgikon
                                                                                Asfaliseon (ELGA) in respect of its activities under the
                                                                                compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks.
1.    The EC Treaty provisions on the common agricultural policy             (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
      and Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 Octo-
      ber 1975 on the common organisation of the market in
      poultrymeat, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 1235/89 of 3 May 1989, do not preclude a quasi-fiscal
      charge established by a Member State, such as a special
      insurance contribution levied on sales and purchases of domestic
      agricultural products which fall within the common organis-
      ation for the market in poultrymeat, the revenue from which is                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      used to fund a public body responsible for the prevention of,
      and compensation for, damage caused to agricultural holdings
                                                                                of 20 May 2003
      by natural risks in that State.
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Refer-
      Those Treaty provisions and Regulation No 2777/75, as                  ence for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgericht-
      amended by Regulation No 1235/89, do preclude such a                   shof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00)
      quasi-fiscal charge however where it is such as to undermine the       v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between
      aims and objects of the common organisation of the market in           Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/
      question and, in particular, where it does in fact restrict intra-                 01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (1)
      Community trade.
                                                                             (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      It is for the national court to decide whether the contribution        personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private
      does in fact have that effect.                                         life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of
                                                                                bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)
2.    Community law on the free movement of goods, in particular                                        (2003/C 171/03)
      Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      Articles 23 EC and 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty                                     (Language of the case: German)
      (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and Article 95 of the
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), does not
      preclude a contribution such as that referred to in paragraph 1        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      of the operative part of the present judgment.                                             in the European Court Reports)
3.    Benefits such as those provided by the Organismos Ellenikon            In Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01: References
      Georgikon Asfaliseon (ELGA) under the compulsory insurance             to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verfassungsgerichts-
      scheme against natural risks do not fall within the scope of           hof (C-465/00) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (C-138/01 and
      either Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,              C-139/01) (Austria) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
      Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50         pending before those courts between Rechnungshof (C-465/
      EC) or First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973              00) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, Wirtschaftskammer Stei-
      on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative            ermark, Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, Land Niederösterre-
      provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business       ich, Österreichische Nationalbank, Stadt Wiener Neustadt,
      of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by           Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG, and
      Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988.                   between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann
                                                                             (C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, on the interpret-
                                                                             ation of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and
      Such a compulsory insurance scheme may, however, constitute            of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
      a restriction on the freedom of insurance companies established        individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and
      in other Member States, who wish to offer services covering            on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),
      such risks in Greece, to provide services, within the meaning of       the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               19.7.2003
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Ravil
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                 SARL og Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA, on the interpret-
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 ation of Article 29 EC, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                 Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               and C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
trar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which it has                   mann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ruled:                                                                       F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                             Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
1.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995              20 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      personal data and on the free movement of such data do not
      preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
      proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure
      not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain
      threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control         1.    As regards the period prior to the entry into force of Commission
      by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of               Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
      that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of             registration of geographical indications and designations of
      proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature,                origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
      that being for the national courts to ascertain.                             Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Article 29 EC must be
                                                                                interpreted as not precluding a convention concluded between
2.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly            two Member States A and B, such as the Convention between
      applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before            the French Republic and the Italian Republic on the protection
      the national courts to oust the application of rules of national             of designations of origin, indications of provenance and names
      law which are contrary to those provisions.                                  of certain products, signed in Rome on 28 April 1964, from
                                                                                making applicable in Member State A national legislation of
                                                                                Member State B, such as that referred to by the national court,
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001 and OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.                             under which the designation of origin of a cheese, protected in
                                                                                Member State B, is reserved, for cheese marketed in grated
                                                                                form, to cheese grated and packaged in the region of production.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                           of 20 May 2003                                          origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
                                                                                the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
                                                                                of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
in Case C-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL,                           Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                            Biraghi SpA ( 1)                                       of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                condition that operations such as the grating and packaging of
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               the product take place in the region of production, where such a
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — ‘Grana                                  condition is laid down in the specification.
Padano’ freshly grated — Specification — Convention
between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is
grated and packaged in the region of production —
Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the
condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal                     3.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Grana
                        certainty— Publicity)                                      Padano’ for cheese marketed in grated form is made subject to
                                                                                the condition that grating and packaging operations be carried
                                                                                out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure
                           (2003/C 171/04)
                                                                                having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports
                                                                                within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as
                     (Language of the case: French)                                justified, and hence compatible with that provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             4.    However, the condition in question may not be relied on against
                                                                                economic operators, as it was not brought to their knowledge
In Case C-469/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                         by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Nevertheless,
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling                      the principle of legal certainty does not preclude that condition


title: Joined Cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN), Republic of Finland v European Commission (Appeal — Access to the documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Environmental information — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Article 6(1) — Documents relating to the pre-litigation stage of infringement procedures — Refusal of access — Obligation to examine specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access — Overriding public interest)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN), Republic of Finland v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-514/11 P and C-605/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to the documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Environmental information - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Article 6(1) - Documents relating to the pre-litigation stage of infringement procedures - Refusal of access - Obligation to examine specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access - Overriding public interest)
   2014/C 9/04
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellants: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva and L. Rossi, advogadas), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, M. Pere and J. Leppo, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Estonia, (represented by: M. Linntam, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and D. Recchia, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 LPN v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by LPN in so far as it relates to documents and parts of documents to which access was refused to the Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) in Commission Decision SG.E.3/MIB/psi D(2008) 8639 of 24 October 2008.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the Liga para a Protecção da Natureza and the Republic of Finland to pay the costs in equal parts;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


               10.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 413/8

         Action brought on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-9/16)
   (2016/C 413/08)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By maintaining in force a national provision such as section 2, paragraph 32, of the Norwegian Product Regulation which bans the manufacture, import, export and sale of consumer products containing certain concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 12zc of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended), in particular Article 128(1) thereof, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.

               2.

               In the alternative, by maintaining in force a national provision such as the aforementioned one once the restriction process under Title VIII of the aforementioned Act referred to at point 12zc of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement has been initiated, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 3 of the EEA Agreement read together with Article 128(1) of that Act.

               3.

               By maintaining in force a national provision such as aforementioned one, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 11 of the EEA Agreement.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) claims that the Kingdom of Norway has breached its obligations under the REACH Regulation, and/or its obligations under the EEA Agreement, by maintaining in force a national regulation prohibiting the manufacture, import, export and sale of consumer products containing 0,001 % or more by weight of a substance commonly referred to as ‘PFOA’.

               —

               ESA seeks to obtain clarification that once a substance has been identified as posing an uncontrolled risk to the environment and human health, unilateral national regulation of substances covered by REACH is permissible only in certain narrowly defined circumstances, provided for under the REACH Regulation.

               —

               The present Application concerns national legislation adopted in Norway to restrict PFOA. By this Application, ESA in no way seeks to question the necessity of regulating PFOA as a substance. It is instead an important procedural matter which has prompted ESA to bring the present infringement action: when an EEA State identifies a risk to health or the environment arising from a substance covered by REACH, it is essential for the functioning of the system established by REACH that those concerns are acted upon within the framework of that system, rather than resulting in unilateral action.

               —

               On 27 August 2013, the Norwegian Government informed ESA that a regulation amending the Norwegian Product Regulation through the introduction of restrictions on the manufacture, import, export and sale of consumer products containing PFOA and certain salts and esters of PFOA had been adopted on 27 May 2013.

               —

               On 8 July 2015, ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on the matter. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA), ESA required Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months following the notification, that is, no later than 8 September 2015.

               —

               By letter of 16 October 2015, Norway responded to the reasoned opinion, maintaining its position and providing some additional comments. As Norway still maintained the national provisions in question by the deadline set in the reasoned opinion, ESA decided to bring the matter before the EFTA Court pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 SCA.


title: Case C-29/15 P: Appeal brought by Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2014 in Case T-556/13 Verband der Kölnisch Wasser Hersteller e.V. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), lodged by fax on 26 January 2015

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/21

         Appeal brought by Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln e.V. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2014 in Case T-556/13 Verband der Kölnisch Wasser Hersteller e.V. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), lodged by fax on 26 January 2015
   (Case C-29/15 P)
   (2016/C 038/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Verband der Kölnisch-Wasser Hersteller, Köln e.V. (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By Order of 3 December 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.


title: Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/26

         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
   (Case T-451/11)
   2011/C 298/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: F. Schwerbrock, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert A. Haskins (Pennsylvania, USA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Gigabyte’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5550009

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4954095 of the word mark ‘GIGABITER’, for services in classes 39, 40 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Section 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the contested services in classes 37 and 42 are similar to the opponent’s services in class 42.


title: Case T-387/03: Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 21/44                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
Finally, the applicant submits that in calculating the                      Pleas in law and main arguments
countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7
of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of
the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings,               Applicant for regis-         Europortal Italia SpA, succeeded
Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and                    tration of the Com-          by the applicant.
Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of                  munity trade mark:
assessment.
                                                                            Community trade mark         Word mark ‘Jumpy’ — regis-
                                                                            sought:                      tration application No 1.332.006,
(1) OJ L 212 of 22 August 2003, p. 1.                                                                    registration sought in respect of a
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on                                              number of goods in Classes 9 and
    protection against subsidized imports from countries not mem-
    bers of the European Community (OJ L 288, p. 1).
                                                                                16.
(3) See recital 48 and following of the contested decision.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Microarea SpA.
                                                                            sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                            sition proceedings:
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        Italian word mark ‘Jump’ for
                                                                            opposition:                  goods in Classes 9 and 16.
                                                                            Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition upheld and appli-
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive                       sition Division:             cation rejected.
Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in
  the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                            Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed.
                                                                            Appeal:
                           (Case T-384/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation No 40/94 (‘likeli-
                            (2004/C 21/88)                                                               hood of confusion’).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI, rep-                    Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc
resented by Giorgio Floridia and Raffaella Floridia, lawyers.               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Microarea SpA was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                (Case T-387/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (2004/C 21/89)
—     annul the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First
      Board of Appeal; or                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—     in the alternative, interpret the decision of the Opposition
      Division No 2637/2002 of 30 August 2002 on Oppo-
      sition No B321994 to the effect that it does not preclude             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the valid registration of the trade mark ‘Jumpy’ to                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      distinguish it from the similarly-named Internet portal;              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc., Beverley, Massachu-
—     make an order pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of               setts, USA, represented by Dr Michael Edenborough, Barrister,
      Procedure requiring the defendant, as the unsuccessful                Mr Cerryg Jones, Ms Alexandra Brodie and Ms Carina Loweth
      party, to pay the costs.                                              Solicitors.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 21/45
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           24 November 2003 by Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg.
—     Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  Co. Ltd., Tokyo (Japan), represented by J. Hofmann, lawyer.
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG was also a party
      (Trademarks and Designs) No $ 0707/2002-4;                           to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
—     Annul the decision of the Examination Division dated the
      21st June 2002
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Remit Community trade mark application No 1 544 766
      to the Office so as to allow the said application to proceed         —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      to advertisement                                                           18 September 2003 (Case R 191/2002-2);
—     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs incurred by
      the applicant in connection with this appeal and the                 —     reject the opposition in its entirety;
      appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution
      before the Examination Division.                                     —     hold that the sign sought in Community trade mark
                                                                                application No 1 005 826 may be registered as a
                                                                                Community trade mark in respect of all the goods in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Classes 1, 2 and 17 claimed in that application of
                                                                                25 November 1998;
Applicant for Com-              Proteome, Inc.
munity trade mark:                                                         —     order the opponent to pay all the costs incurred by the
                                                                                applicant in the opposition and appeal proceedings;
Community trade mark            Word mark ‘BIOKNOWLEDGE’
sought:                         for certain goods and services
                                in Classes 9 (databases etc.), 16          —     order the opponent to pay the costs of the present
                                (printed material etc concerning                 proceedings.
                                repositories of information relat-
                                ing to organisms) and 42 (infor-
                                mation and computer services
                                etc.) (application No 1544766).            Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Examin-         Registration refused.
ation Division:                                                            Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
Decision of the Board of        Appeal rejected.                           munity trade mark:
Appeal:
                                                                           Community trade mark          Figurative mark for goods in
Pleas in law:                   Misapplication of Article 7(1) (b)         sought:                       Classes 1 (chemicals etc.), 2 (dye-
                                and (c) of Regulation 40/94 (1).                                         stuffs etc.) and 17 (plastics etc.) —
                                                                                Application No 1 005 826.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                    Proprietor of mark or         Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-       & Co. KG.
                                                                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Community and national trade
                                                                           opposition:                   mark ‘Pelikan’.
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by Dainichiseika
Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd. against the Office for                    Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the application.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                      sition Division:
                              Designs)
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal      of  the    applicant’s
                         (Case T-389/03)                                   Appeal:                       appeal.
                          (2004/C 21/90)                                   Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 (1).
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the