title: Case C-224/99: Action brought on 10 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.8.1999                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/25
Action brought on 9 June 1999 by the Commission of the                      while the 1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites rep-
   European Communities against the French Republic                         resented 13.6 % of that territory. This demonstrates that, in
                                                                            addition to the sites being insufficient in number, the selected
                                                                            area of the notified sites is insufficient.
                           (Case C-220/99)
                                                                            The Member States were to transmit their full list of sites
                                                                            before 9 June 1995. Even if it is taken into account that the
                           (1999/C 226/42)
                                                                            format to be used still did not exist on that date, the
                                                                            information could have been submitted rapidly once that
                                                                            format had been notified, on 19 December 1996. However,
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            on 15 March 1999, of the 672 sites referred to in the list, 379
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1999
                                                                            had been notified with appropriate information for the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            purposes of Article 4(1) of the directive while 293 sites had
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-
                                                                            been notified without that information.
Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Centre Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the
    full list of sites which is referred to in the first subparagraph
    of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                Action brought on 10 June 1999 by the Commission of
    1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of                  the European Communities against the French Republic
    wild flora and fauna, and information on the sites in
    accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1),
    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                   (Case C-224/99)
    that directive;
                                                                                (1999/C 226/43)
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 June
                                                                            1999 by the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                            Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                            of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
According to the Commission, the process of proposing sites
in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive must be carried out in the broadest possible manner
by including in the national list all the sites hosting the natural         1. declare that, by failing to take the requisite steps to
habitat types in Annex I and the native species in Annex II                     implement the judgment delivered by the Court on
which exist in the territory of the Member State concerned, in                  13 March 1997 in Commission v France (1), the French
so far as those sites are representative and relevant having                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
regard to the criteria set out in Annex III, with a view to the                 228(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
objective of conservation pursued by the directive. The French                  300 EC);
Republic has failed to comply with the obligation to transmit
a full list of the sites concerned since, as the French authorities
                                                                            2. order the French Republic to pay the Commission a fine
themselves acknowledge, the 672 sites appearing on the
                                                                                of EUR 142 425 per day in respect of each day, from the
various lists transmitted in turn do not include any military
                                                                                date of notification of the judgment in which it was found
land. Nor has the French Republic proposed any site in respect
                                                                                not to have fulfilled its obligations, on which it failed to
of the habitats of a number of natural habitat types referred to
                                                                                comply with the abovementioned requirement;
in Annex I or of a number of species in Annex II when,
according to the available scientific data, those habitat types
are present in its territory. The Commission stases, third, that            3. order the French Republic to pay the costs of this case.
the number of sites notified is in any event insufficient having
regard to the sites on French territory meriting inclusion in the
national list; it considers that the French Government should               Pleas in law and main arguments
have transmitted a list which, if not identical to the list of
1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites appearing in the            — in its reply to the reasoned opinion, the French Govern-
survey compiled by the National Museum for Natural History                      ment acknowledged that no measure had been adopted to
under the auspices of that government, listing the entire area                  implement the judgment in which the Court found that
of each of those sites, should at least have been largely based                 ‘by maintaining in force Article L 213-1 of the Code du
on it. Furthermore, the 672 sites notified by the French                        Travail prohibiting nightwork by women in industry ... the
Republic represent, in area, only 2.5 % of national territory,                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under ...
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
    Council Directive 76/207/EEC ... ’. The French Govern-              — in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission
    ment’s argument that it had not been possible to initiate               forthwith of such measures the Portuguese Republic failed
    consultations with labour and employers with a view to                  to fulfil its obligations under those same provisions;
    submitting legislation to Parliament on nightwork is
    wholly without foundation. It is settled case-law that a            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or
    situations in its national legal system to justify a failure to
    comply with obligations under Community law.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— The Commission refers to its communications published in              — The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    the Official Journal on 21 August 1996 (2) and 28 February              paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article
    1997 (3). It considers that the circumstances in which a                10 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
    financial penalty may be waived do not pertain. Based on                measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
    the principle set out in those communications, it has                   them into their domestic law before the expiry of the
    calculated the amount of the fine by attributing a coef-                period prescribed for doing so. That period expired on
    ficient of 9/20 to the seriousness of the breach (being the             25 October 1997 without Portugal having brought into
    sum of a coefficient of 6/10, based on the importance of                force the necessary provisions.
    the Community provisions breached, and a coefficient of
    3/10, based on the effects of the breach on the public
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
    interest and the interests of individuals) and a multipli-
    cation coefficient of 1.5/3 to the length of time.
(1) Case C-197/96 (1997) ECR I-1489.
(2) OJ 1996 C 242, p. 6.
(3) OJ 1997 C 63, p. 2.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-229/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/45)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Action brought on 11 June 1999 by the Commission                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            Republic                                    represented by Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                         (Case C-227/99)                                Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 226/44)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June                 Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Directive 90/628/EEC concerning the protection of ani-
represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and António                    mals during transport (1), the French Republic has failed to
Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address            fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              and
Cruz of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    comply with Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October            in Case C-227/99; the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of the
    1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Com-                 directive expired on 31 December 1996.
    munity airports, within the period prescribed by the first
    subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof, the Portuguese
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first       (1) OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52.
    paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article
    249 of the EC Treaty as well as under the first subparagraph
    of Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC; and


title: Case T-107/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  18 January 2006  — Regione Marche v Commission (Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region (Italy) — Conclusion of financial assistance — Ineligible expenditure — Action for annulment — Absence of legal basis — Legitimate expectation — Failure to state grounds )

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2006 — Regione Marche v Commission
   (Case T-107/03) (1)

   (Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region (Italy) - Conclusion of financial assistance - Ineligible expenditure - Action for annulment - Absence of legal basis - Legitimate expectation - Failure to state grounds )
   (2006/C 74/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione Marche (represented by: A. Pappalardo, M. Merola and D. Domenicucci, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission decision of 18 December 2002 contained in a letter to the Italian Government by which the Commission announced that it was concluding Community financial assistance granted under the Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for the Marche Region (Italy)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.


title: Case T-223/13: Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Action brought on 22 April 2013 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission
   (Case T-223/13)
   2013/C 171/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte GmbH & Co. KG (Minden, Germany) (represented by: H. Weil, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to the first five pleas in law relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case T-94/16: Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Sheridan v Parliament

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/33

         Action brought on 1 March 2016 — Sheridan v Parliament
   (Case T-94/16)
   (2016/C 145/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gavin Sheridan (Midleton, Ireland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)13844 C of the European Parliament of 14 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-639/15, Psara v Parliament (OJ 2016 C 48, p. 53).


title: Case C-618/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl
   (Case C-618/15)
   (2016/C 038/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concurrence Sàrl

      Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged breach of a prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network and via a marketplace by means of online offers for sale on a number of websites operated in various Member States, an authorised distributor which considers that it has been adversely affected has the right to bring an action seeking an injunction prohibiting the resulting unlawful interference in the courts of the territory in which the online content is or was accessible, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Cases T-40/12 and T-183/12: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Europol (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of information technology services relating to a document management system and a corporate Intranet portal — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Transparency — Proportionality — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Europol
   (Cases T-40/12 and T-183/12) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of information technology services relating to a document management system and a corporate Intranet portal - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Proportionality - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 007/30)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: J. Teal and T. de Maignas, acting as Agents, P. Anestis, lawyer, C. Kennedy-Loest, Solicitor, N. Pourbaix and D. Vallindas, lawyers)

      Re:

   In Case T-40/12, an application for annulment of Europol’s decision of 22 November 2011 rejecting the bid tendered by the applicants in connection with Call for Tenders D/C3/1104 concerning the provision of an enterprise content management system (management of documents, records, and business processes) and a corporate Intranet portal (OJ 2011/S 134-222044), and, in Case T-183/12, first, an application for annulment of Europol’s decision to grant the public service contract in respect of the call for tenders referred to above to another tenderer and, secondly, an application for compensation for the loss sustained as a result of the loss of opportunity for the applicants to be granted that public service contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-40/12 and T-183/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Police Office (Europol).

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-385/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Veurne by judgment of 4 May 2001 in criminal proceedings brought against Klaus Hans Fritz Brügge; civil party: Benedikt Leliaert

text:
8.12.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 348/15
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                          Eerste Aanleg te Veurne by judgment of 4 May 2001 in
                                                                          criminal proceedings brought against Klaus Hans Fritz
                                                                                Brügge; civil party: Benedikt Leliaert
                                                                                (Case C-385/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 348/27)
In this action the Commission is seeking a declaration of a
failure in two respects to comply with the provisions of the
Sixth Directive: first, a failure to comply with the first and            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
third sentences of Article 12(3) (a) thereof, inasmuch as France          European Communities by judgment of 4 May 2001 by the
is applying a reduced rate contrary to that provision and,                Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Veurne (Court of First Instance,
secondly, a failure to comply with Article 12(3) (b) concerning           Veurne), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 October
the procedure for authorisation of application of a reduced               2001, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings brought
rate on supplies of natural gas and electricity.                          against Klaus Hans Fritz Brügge; civil party: Benedikt Leliaert,
                                                                          on the following question:
—     On the consultation procedure (Article 12(3)(b)): as long           Does application of Article 54 of the Schengen Agreement of
      as France had not replied to the request for additional             19 June 1990 allow the Belgian Openbaar Ministerie (Public
      information, the Commission was unable to take a                    Prosecutor’s Department) to require a German national to
      definitive view. In the absence of full information, despite        appear before the Belgian criminal courts and allow those
      a request to that effect, the Commission was entitled to            courts to sentence that national in the case where the German
      take the view that the French authorities had withdrawn             Public Prosecutor’s Department, on the basis of the same facts,
      their request. Consequently, by not forwarding the infor-           has offered that German national the opportunity to make
      mation requested by the Commission in order to enable               payment in an out-of-court settlement, which that national
      it to take a decision under Article 12(32)(b), France has           has accepted?
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision.
—     On the substance of the measure (Article 12(3)(a)): if
      the supply agreement is regarded as a specific service
      representing fixed costs as distinct from the actual supply
      of energy, the reduced rate would then have no legal basis
      in Article 12(3)(a) which refers to Annex H and in which            Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the Commission
      the agreement or the supply of energy does not feature.             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Moreover, there is no warrant for that reduced rate in
      Article 12(3)(b) which merely mentions ‘supplies of
                                                                                (Case C-388/01)
      natural gas and electricity’. If, on the other hand, the
      agreement to supply is viewed as forming part of the
      actual supply of energy, then France is obliged to apply                                   (2001/C 348/28)
      the same rate to a transaction relating to the same asset
      in accordance with the principle of a single rate under
      Article 12(3)(a). Thus, under Article 12(3)(1b) it is then
      the whole of the transaction (agreement and supply)                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      which should be subject to the same reduced rate.                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 October
      Consequently, notwithstanding all the distinctions which            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      France has sought to draw between the agreement to                  represented by Marian Patakia and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
      supply and the actual supply of energy, and however                 Agents.
      such agreement maybe described, France cannot but be
      found to have failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of the Sixth VAT Directive.                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —    Declare that, by maintaining in force discriminatory
                                                                               charges for admission to public museums, monuments,
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                       galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens in Italy,
                                                                               granted by local or decentralised authorises which only
                                                                               favour Italian nationals or residents within the territory
                                                                               of the administrative authority running the cultural sites
                                                                               in question and who are aged over 60 or 65 years, to the
                                                                               exclusion of tourists who are nationals of other Member


title: Case C-70/11: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 5 July 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/27

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 5 July 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-70/11) (1)

   2012/C 366/49
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 16 January 1997 in Case C-273/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Verona): Impresa Agricola Buratti Leonardo, Pierluigi e Livio v. Tabacchicoltori Associati Veneti Soc. coop. arl (TAV) (Common organization of the market - Raw tobacco - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 - Premium system for raw tobacco - Calculation of the premium to be paid by a group of producers to the individual producer)

text:
 No C 74/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
 Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty do not apply to a             concluded a cultivation contract with a group of
 situation which is confined in all respects within a single          producers, as referring to the delivery, by a producer or
 Member State.                                                        group of producers to the processor, of a quantity of
                                                                       tobacco to be processed in performance of the cultivation
                                                                       contract.
 H OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 January 1997                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
 in Case C-273/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    of 23 January 1997
 the Pretura Circondariale, Verona): Impresa Agricola
 Buratti Leonardo, Pierluigi e Livio v. Tabacchicoltori               in Case C-463/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
           Associati Veneti Soc. coop, ari (TAV) (')                  the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf): Katholische Kirchen
                                                                      gemeinde St. Martinus Elten v. Landwirtschaftskammer
 (Common organization of the market — Raw tobacco —                   Rheinland, joined parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 — Premium                                                    Thyssen (')
 system for raw tobacco — Calculation of the premium to
 be paid by a group of producers to the individual                    (Additional levy on milk — Calculation of the reference
                            producer)                                 quantity — Taking into account of a quantity produced in
                                                                                another Member State)
                           97/C 74/06
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/07
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     In Case C-463/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District
Magistrate's Court), Verona, Sezione Distaccata di Isola             of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
della Scala (Isola della Scala Division ) (Italy) for a               (Administrative Court) Düsseldorf, Germany, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Impresa Agricola Buratti Leonardo, Pierlui            Court between Katholische Kirchengemeinde St. Martinus
gi e Livio and Tabacchicoltori Associati Veneti Soc. coop,           Elten and Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland, joined
arl (TAV) — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of           parties: Arnold Derksen, Johann Thyssen — on the
Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 of 1 December               interpretation of the rules governing the additional levy on
 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the          milk introduced by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 856/84
premium system for raw tobacco ( OJ No L 351 , 2 . 12.               of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
 1992, p. 17), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EC )            on the common organization of the market in milk and
No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                        milk products ( OJ No L 90, 9 . 4 . 1984, p. 10 ), Council
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
sector ( OJ No L 317, 18 . 12 . 19 93 , p. 30 ) — the Court          general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
(Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 90,
Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C.                 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 ), as amended by Council Regulation
Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                  ( EEC ) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985 amending
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator,              Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 ( OJ No L 68 , 8 . 3 . 1985,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January                p. 1 ), and Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1546/88 of
1997, in which it has ruled :                                        3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application
                                                                     of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 ,
The terms 'delivery under contract' and 'delivery ' used             p. 12 ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
respectively in Article 10 of Commission Regulation                  Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
(EEC) No 3478/92 of 1 December 1992 laying down                      President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
detailed rules for the application of the premium system             Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
for raw tobacco, and Article 1 of Commission Regulation              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General;
(EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993 concerning the                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
agricultural conversion rates to be applied in the tobacco           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in
sector are to be interpreted, where the processor has                which it has ruled:


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 19 July 1996 in Case C-191/96: criminal proceedings against Mario Modesti (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services with regard to national legislation on the management of copyright by a company governed by public law)

text:
No C 336 / 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                 di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates '
                          of 12 July 1996                             Court, Rome, Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Mario Modesti — on the compatibility of national
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European                        legislation relating to the management of copyright with
Communities, supported by Council of the European                     Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Union ( l )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
(Application for interim relief — Agriculture — Animal                Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
health — Emergency measures against bovine spongiform                 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
                          encephalopathy)                             G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P.
                           ( 96/C 336/29 )                            Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                (Language of the case: English)                       19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di
Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll and Sir Nicholas
Lyell, assisted by K. P. E. Lasok and David Anderson )                Tivoli, by order of 21 February 1996 is inadmissible.
against the Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Dierk Booss and James Macdonald Flett ),                   (>) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
supported by the Council of the European Union ( Agents :
Arthur Brautigam and Moyra Sims ) — application for
suspension of the operation of Commission Decision
96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to
protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( 2 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
and/or for interim measures — the Court, composed of
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                                of 19 July 1996
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of               in Case C-l 96/96: criminal proceedings against Hassan
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.                                      Lahlou ( 1 )
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ), Judges;                        (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro; Registrar: R. Grass, made              movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
an order on 12 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          with regard to national legislation on the management of
follows :                                                                  copyright by a company governed by public law)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/31 )
1 . The United Kingdom 's application is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1996 , p. 47.
                                                                      In Case C-l 96/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                      di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates'
                                                                      Court, Rome , Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Hassan Lahlou — on the compatibility of national
                          of 19 July 1996                             legislation relating to the management of copyright with
in Case C-l 91/96: criminal proceedings against Mario                 Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Modesti 0 )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
                                                                      Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
(Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free           Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
                                                                      G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.
 with regard to national legislation on the management of             Jann , H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
       copyright by a company governed by public law)                 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                           ( 96/C 336/30 )                            19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Tivoli, by order of 15 May 1996 is inadmissible.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case C-191 /96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale


title: Case T-195/08: Action brought on 30 May 2008 — Antwerpse Bouwwerken v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/28

         Action brought on 30 May 2008 — Antwerpse Bouwwerken v Commission
   (Case T-195/08)
   (2008/C 183/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: J. Verbist and D. de Keuster, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul (i) the decision of 29 April 2008, notified by the Commission by letter of 29 April 2008, received by the applicant on 5 May 2008, by which the Commission informed the applicant that the latter's tender had been unsuccessful, as further explained in a letter from the European Commission of 6 May 2008 and received by the applicant on 8 May 2008, in which the Commission sets out its reasons for its rejection decision, and (ii) the decision of 23 April 2008 on the award of the contract, notified by the Commission by letter of 15 May 2008, received by the applicant on 16 May 2008;

               —

               declare the Commission to be non-contractually liable for the damage suffered by the applicant, to be quantified at a later date;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a tender in response to the Commission's call for tenders for the construction of a reference materials production hall (1). Ultimately, the applicant's tender was not selected by the Commission.
   The applicant relies in its application on an infringement of Article 91 of Regulation 1605/2002 (2) and of Articles 122, 138 and 148 of Regulation 2342/2002 (3) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC (4).
   According to the applicant, it is apparent from the official records of selection of tenders that the successful tender did not comply with an essential tendering specification and that, consequently, it should have been rejected for failure to comply with the conditions of the contract. The intervention by the tenderer of the successful bid was not merely a case of the tender being clarified but of it being supplemented, which was not permissible at that stage of the procedure.
   In addition, the decision on the award of the contract does not satisfy the principle of transparency, as essential elements of the assessment records, as provided to the applicant, have been rendered illegible.

      (1)  B-Geel: Construction of a reference materials production hall (2006/S 102-108785).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (4)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case C-217/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) — Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 — Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements designated sales guarantee commission arrangements and agency contracts between service-station operators and oil companies)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de Petróleos SA
   (Case C-217/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreements between undertakings - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) - Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 - Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements designated ‘sales guarantee commission arrangements’ and ‘agency contracts’ between service-station operators and oil companies)
   (2006/C 331/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio

      Defendant: Compañía Española de Petróleos SA,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5) — Contracts for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels classified as agency or commission contracts but including certain particular features
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and now Article 81 EC) applies to an agreement for the exclusive distribution of motor-vehicle and other fuels, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a supplier and a service-station operator where that operator assumes, to a non-negligible extent, one or more financial and commercial risks linked to the sale to third parties.

               2.

               Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements must be interpreted as not covering such an agreement in so far as it requires the service-station operator to charge the final retail price stipulated by the supplier.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-137/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Passports and travel documents issued by the Member States — Standards for security features and biometrics — Validity)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-137/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Passports and travel documents issued by the Member States - Standards for security features and biometrics - Validity)
   (2008/C 51/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented by C. Jackson and C. Gibbs, Agents, A. Dashwood, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, and A. Collins, SC, and P. McGarry, BL), Slovak Republic, (represented by R. Procházka, J. Čorba and B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. J. Schutte, R. Szostak and G. Giglio, Agents,

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain, (represented by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands, (represented by H.G. Sevenster, Agent) Commission of the European Communities, (represented by C. O'Reilly, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.


title: Case T-289/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/20

         Action brought on 11 October 2006 — CESD-Communautaire v Commission
   (Case T-289/06)
   (2006/C 310/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement ASBL — CESD-Communautaire ASBL (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Admit this application for annulment based on Article 230 EC, lodged against the Commission decision of 11 August 2006,

               —

               Declare the application admissible,

               —

               Principally, declare the application well-founded and rule that the Commission decision of 11 August 2006 is void since it is the consequence of a misuse of powers, and/or is affected by defects in its reasoning and by a manifest error of assessment,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its decision of 11 August 2006, the Commission found the applicant, under Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation (1), to be in serious breach of three contracts concluded with Eurostat relating to technical cooperation in the sphere of statistics (PHARE programme), which was the result of its refusal to make available to the Commission information allowing an audit of the performance of the contracts in issue. Furthermore, the contested decision states that the Commission reserves the right to seek the enforcement of the contractual provisions which have not been applied, by all appropriate means, including by way of legal proceedings, and, if necessary, to recover the sums which are established as being payable.
   In support of its application for the annulment of the contested decision, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   The first plea relates to an alleged misuse of powers, analysed from the perspective of a misuse of procedure, to the extent that the contested decision is not subject to the particular procedures for dispute resolution laid down by each contract concluded by the applicant with the Commission and based on the application of Article 57 of Financial Regulation No 1605/2002, and substitutes for those procedures the unilateral method of a decision based on Article 93(1)(f) of that regulation. The applicant maintains that the Commission misuses the procedure laid down in Article 93(1)(f) given the article's primary objective which is, according to the applicant, to exclude tenderers who are declared to be in serious breach of contract in an earlier procurement procedure from participating in a later procedure, and terminates contracts which each lay down different methods of dispute resolution by determining the competent courts and the law which applies to those contracts.
   The second plea relied on by the applicant is based on defects in reasoning. The applicant claims that the reasons for the contested decision are not properly stated either in law, in that the decision contains inadequate reasoning to the extent that it applies, in the contractual domain, a provision relating to the sound management of Community public procurement, or in fact, in that the criticisms of the applicant made by the Commission are without foundation, the applicant having shown a willingness to cooperate with the audit services of the Commission.
   In its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment to the extent that the contested decision states the facts alleged against the applicant without first characterising them as a serious breach of contract by following the contractual procedures under Article 57(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Case C-279/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water
   (Case C-279/12)
   2012/C 250/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fish Legal, Emily Shirley

      Defendants: The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

      Questions referred

      Article 2.2(b) of Directive 2003/4/EC
       (1)

               1.

               In considering whether a natural or legal person is one ‘performing public administrative functions under national law’, is the applicable law and analysis purely a national one?

               2.

               If it is not, what EU law criteria may or may not be used to determine whether:

                           (i)

                           the function in question is in substance a 'public administrative one;

                           (ii)

                           national law has in substance vested such function in that person?

      Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2003/4/EC

               3.

               What is meant by a person being 'under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2.2(a) or (b)? In particular, what is the nature, form and degree of control required and what criteria may or may not be used to identify such control?

               4.

               Is an “emanation of the State” (under paragraph 20 of the judgment in Foster v British Gas plc (Case C-188189) necessarily a person caught by Article 2.2(c)?

      Article 2.2(b) and (c)

               5.

               Where a person falls within either provision in respect of some of its functions, responsibilities or services, are its obligations to provide environmental information confined to the information relevant to those functions, responsibilities or services or do they extend to all environmental information held for any purpose?

      (1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC
   OJ L 41, p. 26


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2004 in Case T-267/02, Rewe-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/39

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 June 2004
   in Case T-267/02, Rewe-Zentral AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 228/89)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-267/02, REWE-ZENTRAL AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Weberndorfer and G. Schneider), the intervener before the Court of First Instance being Fritidsresor AB, established in Stockholm, represented by U. Sander, lawyer, an action brought against the decision of 1 July 2002 by OHIM's First Board of Appeal (case R 888/2000-1) as regards the registration of the sign Atlasreisen as a Community mark, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 14 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the matter.

               2.

               Each party is to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case T -319/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  1 June 2006  — Port Support Customs Rotterdam v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 June 2006 — Port Support Customs Rotterdam v Commission
   (Case T -319/04) (1)

   (2006/C 178/73)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-220/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court), by order of that court of 13 November 2000, in the case of Joseph Lennox (trading as R. Lennox & Son) against Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine

text:
C 200/54               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14.7.2001
      which there is no unequivocal correlation has the effect          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commer-
      of increasing the risk of confusion and classification            cial Court) of 13 November 2000, which was received at the
      errors. A Member State may not plead the mere concept             Court Registry on 30 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
      of ‘national management’ in order to be authorised to             the case of Joseph Lennox (trading as R. Lennox & Son) against
      derogate from the applicable Community legislation,               Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine, on the following questions:
      inasmuch as there is no way of telling how the manage-
      ment of waste in Luxembourg relates to ‘specific needs’
      which are not covered by the relevant Community rules.
                                                                        1.    (a)  Where a consignment of sheep is exported from one
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.                                                  Member State to another Member State and the
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991.                                                          sheep are for slaughter on arrival, is the requirement
(3) OJ L 5 of 7.1.1994, p. 15.                                                     under Article 9 of Directive 91/68/EEC (1) complied
                                                                                with where the accompanying health certificate is
                                                                                not a Model I certificate, as in Annex E thereof, but
                                                                                is a Model II certificate?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
di Firenze by order of that court of 23 January 2001 in                       (b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is No, so that the
the case of Altair Chimica SpA against ENEL Distribuzione                          consignment must be accompanied only by a Mo-
                                SpA                                                del I certificate, does the responsibility for identifying
                                                                                the correct certificate prior to export rest on the
                                                                                exporter or on the recipient of the sheep, or is it for
                         (Case C-207/01)                                           the applicable national law of the contract to
                                                                                determine which party bears this responsibility?
                         (2001/C 200/96)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
                                                                              (c)  Where a consignment of sheep is exported from one
(Court of Appeal), Florence, by order of 23 January 2001,
                                                                                Member State to another Member State and the
received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a
                                                                                sheep are for slaughter on arrival and where the
preliminary ruling in the case of Altair Chimica SpA v ENEL
                                                                                accompanying health certificate is a Model II certifi-
Distribuzione SpA on the exact interpretation of Articles 81,
                                                                                cate, is the national law of the State of destination
82 and 85 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
                                                                                entitled to make the importation unlawful on the
of Directive 92/12/EEC (1) and Council Recommendation
                                                                                ground that the certificate is not a Model I certificate?
81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981, in order to ascertain whether
the provisions of national law laid down in Legislative Decrees
No 347/44 and No 896/47, Presidential Decree No 373/94,
Legislative Decree No 98/48 and Law No 9/91 are incompat-
ible with those provisions of Community law.                            2.    (a)  In July 1997, was it compatible with Community
                                                                                law, in particular Articles 28-30 EC (ex Articles 30-
                                                                                36) and/or Article 152 EC (ex 129 of the EC Treaty)
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                 and/or Articles 6 and 174 EC (from ex 130r of the
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the                    EC Treaty) and Council Directives 89/662/EEC (2),
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
    L 76, of 23 March 1992, p. 1).
                                                                                90/425/EEC (3) and 91/68/EEC, for a Member State
                                                                                to require that the health certificates required pursu-
                                                                                ant to Article 9 of Directive 91/68/EEC include the
                                                                                following declaration: ‘The animals referred to in
                                                                                this certificate were born and raised on farms
                                                                                in which no case of Transmissible Spongiform
                                                                                Encephalopathy (TSE) has been registered in the last
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                               6 years.’?
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Commercial Court), by order of that court of 13 Novem-
ber 2000, in the case of Joseph Lennox (trading as
R. Lennox & Son) against Industria Lavorazione Carni                          (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is No, where the
                               Ovine                                               exporter has otherwise fulfilled its obligations under
                                                                                the applicable law of the contract to deliver the
                         (Case C-220/01)                                           sheep to the recipient’s place of business, is a
                                                                                national court required, in civil proceedings between
                         (2001/C 200/97)                                           the exporter and the recipient concerning their
                                                                                contractual rights and obligations regarding the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             importation of the sheep, to ignore any obligations
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                              under the national law of the Member State of
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
C 252/8        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                3.9.1999
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                      (1999/C 252/08)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities will advertise in the Official Journal of the European
        Communities C 252 A of 3 September 1999 the following open competitions:
        French edition
        CJ/LA/33 (lawyer-linguists of French mother-tongue)
        Dutch edition
        CJ/LA/34 (lawyer-linguists of Dutch mother-tongue)
        Portuguese edition
        CJ/LA/35 (lawyer-linguists of Portuguese mother-tongue)
        To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
        the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-81/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/64)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 8 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-81/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Arbeitsgericht Berlin): Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-181/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto lodged on  7 April 2006  — Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (LUFTHANSA) v ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal, S.A

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto lodged on 7 April 2006 — Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (LUFTHANSA) v ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal, S.A
   (Case C-181/06)
   (2006/C 154/18)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (LUFTHANSA)

      Defendant: ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal, S.A
   Questions referred

               1.

               May the sum demanded by way of charges for administrative assistance and supervision, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Decree No 12/99 of 30 July 1999, be regarded as a fee having been ‘determined according to relevant, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria’, as required by Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67 of the Council of the European Union of 15 October 1997?

               2.

               Is it in conflict, or incompatible, with the free access to the market for the provision of groundhandling services to third parties provided for by Article 6 of Council Directive 96/97 (1), for payment to be required of a sum by way of charges for administrative assistance and supervision, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Decree No 12/99 of 30 July 1999 and Article 18(2) of Decree-Law No 102/90 of 21 March 1990, as amended by Decree-Law No 280/99 of 26 July 1999, and other provisions fixing the amount of that sum?

               3.

               Is it in conflict, or incompatible, with the completion of the internal market and the principles laid down in Articles 3(c) and 4 of the EC Treaty, for payment to be required of a sum by way of charges for administrative assistance and supervision, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Decree No 12/99 of 30 July 1999 and Article 18(2) of Decree-Law No 102/90 of 21 March 1990, as amended by Decree-Law No 280/99 of 26 July 1999, and other provisions fixing the amount of that sum?

               4.

               May requiring payment of a sum by way of charges for administrative assistance and supervision, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Decree No 12/99 of 30 July 1999 and Article 18(2) of Decree-Law No 102/90 of 21 March 1990, as amended by Decree-Law No 280/99 of 26 July 1999, and other provisions fixing the amount of that sum, be regarded as abuse within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36).


title: Case F-87/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment — Procedure — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Competence)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013
   Wahlström v Frontex
   (Case F-87/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment - Procedure - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence)
   2013/C 147/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Alimos, Greece), (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex),(represented by S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, of 10 December 2010, not to extend Mr Wahlström’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               2.

               Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wahlström.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.


title: Case T-110/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Axions s.a. and Christian Belce against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)

text:
1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/25
It seeks, first, the annulment of that decision, on the ground           The applicants claim that the Court should:
that by finding for the first time in the decision that it was
liable for having personally taken part in the cartel in question,
the Commission upheld a complaint which had not been set
out in the statement of complaints. Bolloré was in fact                  —     Set aside the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
concerned in the procedure only as the 100 % parent company                    Appeal of 16 January 2002 in appeal R 0538/2001-3;
of Copigraph, the latter being the company which, according
to the Commission, took part in the cartel. Consequently, by
finding against the applicant on the basis of a new complaint
not notified in the statement of complaints, the Commission              —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
prevented it from defending itself properly and thereby
infringed its rights of defence and right to be heard.
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of Article 81
of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement as a
result of imputing to the applicant the anti-competitive                 Pleas in law and main arguments
conduct of Copigraph. Bolloré points out that, according to
the latest case-law, the holding of 100 % of the capital of a
company does not in itself mean that the infringing conduct
of the subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company.
                                                                         Community trade mark          Three-dimensional trade mark in
                                                                         applied for:                  the form of a representation of
                                                                                the frustrum of a pyramid upside
                                                                                down with a rectangular base area
In the alternative, the applicant contests the amount of the
                                                                                approximately 25 cm × 8 cm and
fine imposed on it by the Commission, and seeks a very
                                                                                bevelled lateral faces in the colour
substantial reduction, on the ground that it infringed
                                                                                gold — Application No 1408889
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the principle of
proportionality.
                                                                         Goods or services:            Goods in classes 16 and 30 (inter
                                                                                alia chocolate, chocolate goods;
                                                                                cardboard packaging in the form
                                                                                of a gold ingot for chocolate and
                                                                                chocolate goods)
                                                                         Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                         before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Axions s.a. and
Christian Belce against Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
                         (Case T-110/02)
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                         (2002/C 131/47)                                                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                error of assessment and breach of
                                                                                the principle of equal treatment.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
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
5 April 2002 by Axions S.A., of Geneva (Switzerland), and
Christian Belce, of Veyrier (Switzerland), represented by C.M.
Eckhartt, lawyer.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 1996 in Case T-120/89(92): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG (which has become Preussag Stahl AG) v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
 11 . 1 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 9 / 15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht              Is the first subparagraph of Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation
Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 13 November 1996,                ( EEC ) No 1546/88 ( ! ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen v. Hauptzollamt                   No 1033/89 (2 ), valid in so far as it requires, over and
                                 Bielefeld                             above the requirements laid down in the first sentence of
                           ( Case C-374/96                             Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ), as
                                                                       amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 764/89 ( 4 ) and by
                              ( 97/C 9/25 )                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 5 ), that the producer must
                                                                       actually have resumed direct sales and/or deliveries of milk
                                                                       for at least 12 months ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                     (1)  OJ No  L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
 ( Finance Court) Düsseldorf of 13 November 1996,                      (2 ) OJ No  L 110, 21 . 4. 1989, p. 27.
received at the Court Registry on 26 November 1996, for                (3 ) OJ No  L 90, 1 . 4. 1984, p. 13 .
a preliminary ruling in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen              (4)  OJ No  L 84 , 29 . 3 . 1989 , p . 2 .
v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the following question :                  (5)  OJ No  L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p. 35 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 November 1996
                       of 8 November 1996
                                                                       in Case T-47/96: Syndicat départemental de défense du
in Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG                  droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ) v. Commission of the
( which has become Preussag Stahl AG ) v. Commission of                                    European Communities ( x )
                 the European Communities 0 )
                                                                       (Commission 's refusal to commence the infringement
                        (Taxation of costs)                              procedure — Action for failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/27 )
                              ( 97/C 9/26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)                         In Case T-47/96 : the Syndicat départemental de défense du
                                                                       droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is
                                                                       at Beaucaire ( France ), represented initially by Olivier
                                                                       Girard, of the Nîmes Bar, and subsequently by Maryse
In Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG
                                                                       Joissains-Masini, of the Aix-en-Provence Bar, against the
(which has become Preussag Stahl AG ), represented by
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Denise
Messrs Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann and Sedemund, of the
                                                                       Sorasio ) — application pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
Berlin Bar, against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Treaty for a declaration that, by not initiating the
Communities ( Agent: Götz zur Hausen ) — application for
                                                                       procedure pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty in
taxation of the costs payable by the defendant to the
                                                                       respect of the French Republic, the Commission failed to
applicant pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       act — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),
Instance of 27 June 1991 in Case T-120/89 Stahlwerke
                                                                       composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, H. Kirschner and
Peine-Salzgitter AG v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR 11-279 —
                                                                       A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
the Court of First Instance, composed of R. García-
                                                                       order on 12 November 1996 , the operative part of which
Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.              is as follows :
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 November 1996, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                       2 . There is no need to take a decision on the applications
The total costs payable by the Commission to Stahlwerke                     to intervene .
Peine-Salzgitter AG (PSAG) are fixed in the sum of
DM 160 000 .                                                           3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic are each
                                                                            ordered to bear their own costs.
( ] ) OJ No C 207, 12 . 8 . 1989 , p . 15 .
                                                                       0 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 32 .


title: Case T-301/06: Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/60

         Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission
   (Case T-301/06)
   (2006/C 326/129)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

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

               —

               Declare admissible the action for annulment brought by Lemaître Sécurité SAS against the Commission Decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding;

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding;

               —

               Order the re-examination of the termination of the anti-dumping proceeding for safety footwear;

               —

               Monitor compliance with the judgement of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under Article 233 EC;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By Decision 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 (1), the Commission decided to terminate the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India, after the main complainant withdrew its complaint in consequence of the Commission's letter of 5 July 2006 accepting, after an investigation it had conducted, that there had been dumping of safety footwear but refusing to impose anti-dumping duties on the ground that the European Community had no interest in imposing such duties. The applicant, a European producer of safety footwear claims that, because of the import of footwear from China and India, it is suffering economic and strategic loss in the absence of measures adopted to re-establish fair competition.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   The first plea in law alleges a defective statement of reasons in that, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not set out, clearly and unequivocally, the reasons why it refuses to adopt anti-dumping measures.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 384/96 (2), combined with Articles 2 EC, 3(m) EC, 127(2) EC and 157(1) EC, in that the Commission did not, in this case, correctly evaluate the existence of a Community interest in adopting anti-dumping measures.
   By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that, by expressly accepting that there had been dumping of safety footwear whilst refusing to adopt measures to correct it, the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).


title: Case T-356/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Restoin v OHIM (EQUIPMENT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EQUIPMENT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Restoin v OHIM (EQUIPMENT)
   (Case T-356/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EQUIPMENT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Restoin (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Alcaraz, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1430/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark EQUIPMENT as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Restoin to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 1.9.2011.