title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, by order of that court of 9 November 1998, in the case of Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd against the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Case C-477/98)

text:
13.3.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 71/13
The pleas in law and main arguments in support are                             radically amended and thus replaced agreements
similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).                                         previously concluded, the Federal Republic of
                                                                               Germany has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, with regard to
(1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.                        agreements concluded before the EC Treaty entered
(2 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
(3 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
                                                                               into force, and under secondary law, with regard to
(4 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.                                                 those agreements which were concluded after the EC
(5 ) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.                                Treaty entered into force, by not rescinding the
                                                                               provisions contained in those previously concluded
                                                                               agreements which are incompatible with the EC
                                                                               Treaty, in particular Article 52, and with the
                                                                               secondary law adopted thereunder, and by failing to
                                                                               take all legally possible steps to that end;
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                      3. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
of the European Communities against the Federal                                costs of the present proceedings.
                       Republic of Germany
                          (Case C-476/98)
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments in support are
                           (1999/C 71/22)                                 similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                          (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     (3) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       (4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
Communities on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                         (5) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
of the European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack
and Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               in Northern Ireland, by order of that court of 9 November
                                                                          1998, in the case of Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd
                                                                          against the Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland
1. Declare that, by having individually negotiated, signed
      and concluded, in 1994 and 1996, an Open Skies'                                             (Case C-477/98)
      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                                (1999/C 71/23)
      Federal Republic of Germany acted in breach of its
      obligations under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5
      and 52 thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
      adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of                European Communities by an order of the Court of
      air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)               Appeal in Northern Ireland of 9 November 1998, which
      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                was received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998,
      to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eurostock Meat
      No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for               Marketing Ltd against the Department of Agriculture for
      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)               Northern Ireland, on the following questions:
      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
      conduct for computerised reservation systems, and                   (1) May a Member State take interim protective measures
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January                      in accordance with Article 9(1) of Council Directive
      1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at                      89/662/EEC (1) when the Commission has made
      Community airports;                                                      Decision 97/534/EC (2) under Article 9(4) of the said
                                                                               Directive but postponed the coming into effect of that
                                                                               Decision?
2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
      declare that:
                                                                          (2) If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, before the Member
                                                                               State may take such interim protective measures what,
                                                                               if any, degree of certainty, probability or possibility is
      In so far as the 1994 and 1996 agreements cannot, in                     required that the Commission will put into effect the
      view of specific provisions, be regarded as having                       said Decision?
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
(3) On the correct interpretation of Article 4(1) of                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Commission Decision 97/534/EC:
                                                                        1. The present case does not concern a loan made by a
     (a) must specified risk material be removed and                        State organisation to an undertaking for investment
         stained at the point of production; and                            purposes; instead, it relates to the recovery of a debt
                                                                            due in respect of unpaid social security contributions,
     (b) is the point of production for those purposes the                  to be effected in one of the ways provided for in the
         place at which the animals are slaughtered?                        social security legislation and under the circumstances
                                                                            laid down therein.
(4) If the answer to Question 1 is No, may a Member                         To attach different conditions to the deferral of
     State nonetheless justify under Article 36 of the Treaty               payment of the debt, and to impose an interest rate
     on the grounds of the protection of human health                       different from the statutory rate, as advocated by the
     measures including a prohibition on the importation                    Commission, would entail an act contrary to the
     from another Member State of:                                          Spanish social security legislation which the Spanish
                                                                            legislature alone is competent to adopt, as provided
     (a) specified risk material within the meaning of the                  for by Article 118 of the Treaty.
         said Decision;
                                                                        2. The Commission appears to question the lawfulness of
         or                                                                 the very system of deferral or payment in instalments
                                                                            which exists under Spanish law; however, it is not
                                                                            empowered to pronounce on the lawfulness of that
     (b) bovine heads       containing     such   specified   risk
                                                                            system, the determination thereof being a matter
         material?
                                                                            falling within the legislative competence of the State.
(1) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
    concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a        3. In accordance with the normal regulatory practice
    view to the completion of the internal market (OJ L 395,                regarding the deferral of debts due to the social
    30.12.1989, p. 13).                                                     security authorities, Royal Decree No 505/85 on the
(2) Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the                    organisation and operation of the FOGASA refers to
    prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards          the application of the statutory interest rate
    transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (Text with EEA                determined in accordance with Article 1 of the 1984
    relevance) (OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, p. 95).                                 Law. The present case does not concern State aid but
                                                                            relates instead to the application of legislation laying
                                                                            down generally applicable rules.
                                                                        4. The general nature of the application of the statutory
                                                                            interest rate to agreements concerning the repayment
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by the Kingdom                           of wages and salaries paid by FOGASA and the
of Spain against the Commission of the European                             deferral of debts due to the social security authorities
                          Communities                                       is such as to preclude the existence of any unlawful
                                                                            State aid.
                        (Case C-479/98)
                         (1999/C 71/24)                                 5. The contested decision is based on an           inaccurate
                                                                            comparison, in that it treats a creditor      seeking to
                                                                            recover a debt due to it in the same way as   an investor
An action against the Commission of the European                            who is seeking to obtain an economic          benefit by
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      granting a loan.
the European Communities on 24 December 1998 by the
Kingdom of Spain, represented by M. López-Monís
Gallego, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 December 1998 by the Kingdom
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-480/98)
(1) annul the Commission's decision of 28 October 1998
     concerning State aid granted to SNIACE, of                                                (1999/C 71/25)
     Torrelavega, Cantabria;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
(2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of


title: Case C-402/05 P: Appeal brought on  17 November 2005  by Yassin Abdullah Kadi against the judgment made on  21 September 2005  by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/19

         Appeal brought on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi against the judgment made on 21 September 2005 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-402/05 P)
   (2006/C 36/39)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment made on 21 September 2005 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, residing in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), represented by Ian Brownlie CBE QC, David Anderson QC, Pushpinder Saini, Barrister and Guy Martin, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               a)

               set aside, in whole, the decision of the Court of First Instance.

               b)

               make a declaration that Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) is void and a nullity.

               c)

               order that the Council and/or Commission pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that Art. 308 CE, in conjunction with Arts. 60 and 301 CE, was a sufficient legal basis for Regulation 881/2002.
   The applicant further submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of the relevant principles of international law:

               —

               the Court's judgement conflates the question of the UN Charter as a source of treaty obligations with the different question of the effects for Member States of decisions of the Security Council;

               —

               the Court erred in law in assuming that resolutions of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are to be automatically inserted into the sphere of domestic law and jurisdiction;

               —

               the Court erred in holding that it has no power to review the lawfulness of Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter;

               —

               the reasoning of the Court exhibits a substantial inconsistency in its treatment of the principle of jus cogens;

               —

               the Court has failed to appreciate the legal significance of the failure of the Security Council to establish an independent international court.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) NO 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9-22.


title: Case C-273/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro

text:
13.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/11
b)   Does Article 11 of the Directive simply mean that, if a                  eligible to join the Scheme can comply with the require-
     candidate for approval to audit accounting documents in                  ment of being employed under a contract of employment,
     a Member State of the European Union has obtained,                       and by establishing that the requirement is not objectively
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation,                     justified?
     some of the required qualifications in another Member
     State, the Member State from which approval is sought
     regards those qualifications as having been obtained in
     that same State and does not introduce an exception to
     the generally applicable rule that approval is granted only
     after an examination of professional competence has
     been passed? Or is it to be interpreted as allowing a
     person holding an approval to audit accounting docu-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
     ments which has been granted to him in a Member State              Bari — Sezione distaccata di Altamura, by order of that
     under the regime which applied before harmonisation to             court of 28 June 2001 in the case of Walter Ferro against
     receive the corresponding approval in another Member                                       Giovanni Santoro
     State without being obliged to sit an examination of
     professional competence, but just on a simple finding                                       (Case C-273/01)
     that his qualifications are equivalent?
                                                                                (2001/C 289/21)
(1) OJ L 126, 12.5.1984, p. 20.                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari —
                                                                        Sezione distaccata di Altamura (Bari District Court, Altamura
                                                                        Division) of 28 June 2001, which was received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of Walter Ferro against Giovanni Santoro on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘whether Directive 86/653/EEC (1) on the coordination of the
                                                                        laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commer-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               cial agents and, in any event, the principles of Community law
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court              of freedom of movement and the freedom to provide services
of 22 June 2001, in the case of Debra Allonby against 1)                are to be interpreted as being compatible with national
Accrington & Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing                 legislation which makes the right of brokers to payment for
Services, 3) Secretary of State for Education and Employ-               services conditional upon their being entered in the appropri-
                               ment                                     ate register.’
                        (Case C-256/01)                                 (1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                            coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                            employed commercial agents OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
                        (2001/C 289/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 June 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2001, for a preliminary        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Debra Allonby against 1) Accrington &             (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 7 June 2001,
Rossendale College, 2) Education Lecturing Services, 3) Sec-            in the case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of
retary of State for Education and Employment, on the follow-                                   Customs and Excise
ing questions:
                                                                                (Case C-275/01)
1.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to enable a
     woman to claim equal pay with a man in the circum-                                          (2001/C 289/22)
     stances of this case?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.   Does Article 141 have direct effect so as to entitle               European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     Mrs Allonby to claim access to the pension scheme either           (United Kingdom) of 7 June 2001, which was received at the
     (i) by comparing herself with Mr Johnson or (ii) by                Court Registry on 12 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     showing statistically that a considerably smaller pro-             case of Sinclair Collis Ltd against Commissioners of Customs
     portion of female than of male teachers who are otherwise          and Excise, on the following question:


title: Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Sogecable SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-52/96)

text:
No C 180/34                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
— order        the      Council     to   bear the   costs     of this        and the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia de
       proceeding.                                                           Espana ( Spanish Court for the Defence of Competition )
                                                                             respectively, and made public by way of a statement of
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                             the spokesperson for the Commissioner responsible for
                                                                             Competition Policy on 8 February 1996, in which
                                                                             the Commission concluded that the concentration
The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
of the Republic of Korea , produces a wide range of food and                 by which Cablevision SA was taken under joint
chemicals products, including monosodium glutamate                           control constitutes a concentration operation with a
 (' MSG'), a product used as a flavour enhancer in food                      Community dimension;
 products . On 3 November 1 995 , it lodged an application for
annulment against Commission Regulation ( EC )                           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
No 1754/95 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on
 imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia ,
the Republic of Korea , Taiwan and Thailand ( 1 ). The act               Pleas in law and main arguments:
challenged in the present application is Council Regulation
 ( EC ) No 8 1 /96 ( 2 ), imposing definitive anti-dumping duties        The applicant submits that, on 26 July 1995 , Telefonica de
on imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Korea,                 Espana, SA and its subsidiary Telecartera , SA, on the one
Indonesia and Taiwan .                                                   hand, and Sociedad de Gestion de Cable, SA and Sociedad
                                                                         de Television Canal Plus, SA ( two companies which, since
The grounds, on the basis of which the legality of the                  January 1 996 , constitute a single company known from
contested Regulation is challenged, can be summarized as                 March 1996 as Sogecable ) on the other, signed agreements
follows :                                                                which involved the transformation of Sociedad General de
                                                                         Cablevision, SA into a joint venture of a concentrated nature
 1 , the Council has wrongly determined the applicant's                  and intended to provide multimedia services, not including
       dumping margin, and hence the applicant's                         telecommunications, to local cable operators . Since those
       anti-dumping duty, in that it has determined the                  agreements implied the existence of an economic
       applicant's export price on the basis of Articles 2 ( 8 ) ( b )   concentration, the signatory undertakings considered
       and 7 ( 7 ) ( b ) of the anti-dumping Regulation whilst it        whether it had a Community dimension within the meaning
       should have exclusively applied Article 2 ( 8 ) ( a );            of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 . After
                                                                         considering the relevant factors, those undertakings arrived
2 , the Council's finding that the imports from the countries            at the conclusion that the concentration had a national
       subject to investigation had, taken in isolation,                 dimension, so that it was excluded from the scope of the
       continued to cause material injury to the Community               regulation . The Commission, on the contrary, found that
       industry is vitiated by fundamental contradictions .              the establishment of Cablevision was a concentration with
                                                                         Community dimension .
f 1 ) Case T-208/95 , OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 19 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 15 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 20 .                             That     decision   of     the   Commission    constitutes    the
                                                                         subject-matter of the present action based on the
                                                                        infringement of Article 5 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                        No 4064/89 .
                                                                        According to the applicant, the argument of the
Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Sogecable SA against                 Commission is essentially the following: Sogecable is jointly
         the Commission of the European Communities                     controlled by two of its shareholders, Prisa ( Promotora de
                             ( Case T-52/96                             Informaciones, SA ) and Canal Plus Francia ( Canal Plus,
                                96/C 180/85                             Société Anonyme ); consequently, pursuant to Article 5 (4 )
                                                                        of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89, Sogecable's turnover
                                                                        must be added to the turnover of Prisa and Canal Plus
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Francia . The Community dimension results from that
                                                                        aggregate .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The applicant claims that, vis-à-vis Sogecable, only Prisa is
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1 996 by               in any of the situations contemplated by Article 5 ( 4 ) of the
Sogecable SA, whose registered office is in Madrid,                     regulation, namely, that laid down in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( e ) ( has
represented by Santiago Martinez Lage and Rafael                        the right to manage the undertaking's affairs ), although that
Allendesalazar Corcho, of the Madrid Bar, with an address               is not the case so far as Canal Plus Francia is concerned . The
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                fact of the matter is that the Commission, by its decision,
31 Grand-Rue .
                                                                        seeks in essence to replace the clear, exhaustive and formal
                                                                        criteria of Article 5 ( 4 ) with the vaguer, more imprecise and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            practical criteria of Article 3 ( 3 ) which is not intended to
                                                                        determine whether a concentration has a Community
— annul the decision of the Commission contained in the                 dimension but merely to define whether an operation
      letters of 6 and 7 February 1996 sent to the applicant            constitutes a concentration. Thus, the Commission infringes
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 180/35
Article 5 (4 ) which is the only provision applicable in this            Pleas in law and main arguments:
case .
                                                                         The applicants complain that the Commission failed, in the
In the alternative, even assuming that Sogecable were                    context of its task of monitoring trade between Member
'jointly controlled' by Prisa and Canal Plus Francia, as the             States, public health and consumer protection, to introduce
Commission maintains, the applicant states, first, that Prisa            appropriate measures for the protection of public health on
and Canal Plus Francia would not jointly have any of the                 the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis ( BSE),
powers and rights set out in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ) and, secondly,        known as ' mad cow disease '. They state that the steps taken
that, even if they jointly had the powers and rights laid down           by the Commission since 1 988 to prevent the spread of BSE,
in Article 5 ( 4 ) ( b ), their turnover should not be added to          and possibly Creutzfeldt-Jacob's disease, must be regarded
Sogecable's turnover, pursuant to Article 5 ( 4 ) ( c ).                 as inadequate, having regard to the embargo measures
                                                                         precipitately decided on 26 March 1996 by that same
                                                                         Commission, which nevertheless has no more information
                                                                         than previously on any potential risk. The applicants
                                                                         maintain that the Commission is liable, inasmuch as it
                                                                         breached the principle of proportionality and made an
                                                                         incorrect assessment of the facts, giving rise to a risk to
                                                                         public health and consumers and having a manifest impact
                                                                         on trade in bovine livestock in the European Union .
Action brought on 16 April 1996 by Syndicat des
Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination Rurale,
Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la Coordination Rurale               Although the first recorded case of mad cow disease dates
and Philippe de Villiers against the Commission of the                   from 1986 , on a farm in Kent in the United Kingdom, and
                      European Communities                               despite numerous communications, scientific and
                                                                         journalistic, confidential and public, on the risks of the
                            ( Case T-53/96 )
                                                                         spread of BSE and the risks of human contamination, the
                              ( 96/C 180/86 )                            Commission, on the pretext of a lack of scientific certainty,
                                                                         failed to take the only measure to be taken in the face of a
                                                                         public health risk, namely the total prohibition of exports
                (Language of the case: French)                           and the possible slaughter of herds .
An action against the Commission of the European                         The applicants consider that the Commission failed to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        perform its obligation to supervise and monitor
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1996 by                 intra-Community trade . As a result of that failure, they, like
the Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      any other European citizen, have suffered non-material
Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs de                  damage for which they seek reparation; some of the
Lait de la Coordination Rurale, established at L'Isle                    applicants also claim to have suffered material damage, the
Jourdain ( France ), and Philippe de Villiers , residing at Les          extent of which is to be established in the course of the
Aubretières ( France ), represented by Alexandre Varaut, of              proceedings .
the Paris Bar .
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare the European Commission liable, on the basis of
     Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of
     the Treaty on European Union, for failure to introduce              Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA
     measures for the protection of public health on the                  and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA against the
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalitis, known as                            Commission of the European Communities
     mad cow disease ;
                                                                                ( Case T-54/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/87
— order the European Union to pay the Syndicat des
     Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la Coordination
     Rurale, the Syndicat des Producteurs de Lait de la                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
     Coordination Rurale and Philippe de Villiers the sum of
     FF 1 as token damages for the non-material damage
     suffered;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
— appoint such expert as the Court may think fit to                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 April 1 996 by
     determine the loss suffered by the members of the                    Oleifici Italiani SpA, whose registered office is at Ostuni
     Syndicat des Producteurs de Viande Bovine de la                      ( BR ) ( Italy ), and F.lli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA, whose
     Coordination Rurale and the Syndicat des Producteurs                 registered office is at Bari ( Italy ), represented by Antonio
     de Lait de la Coordination Rurale .                                  Tizzano and Gianmichele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (2ª Secção - Contencioso Tributário), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996, in the case of ICT - Indústria e Comércio Têxtil, SA v. Fazenda Pública (Case C-322/96)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/23
           subject to the levy for the purposes of the latter's       3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
           business , with the exception of sales of businesses ,          must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
           and                                                             to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in 90
                                                                           days ?
     ( b ) the turnover tax payable by the person subject to
           the levy on imports of goods for his business or on        (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
           purchases effected within the Community for the                imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton
           purposes of his business ?                                     yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No L 82 , 27 . 3 . 1992 ,
                                                                          p. 1 ).
2 . Does Article 33 of the sixth Directive prohibit the
     charging of a levy such as that described in the first
     question ?
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                     Removal from the register of Case C-55/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/46 )
                                                                      By order of 1 8 July 1996 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                      register of Case C-55/95 : Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo                   Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Tribunal Administrativo (2? Sec^ao — Contencioso
Tributario ), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996,          (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil, SA v.
                          Fazenda Publica
                         ( Case C-322/96
                           ( 96/C 336/45 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-156/94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Supremo                     By order of 1 1 September 1996 the President of the Court of
Tribunal Administrativo ( 2? Sec^ao — Contencioso                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Tributario) ( Supreme Administrative Court (2nd Division —            from the register of Case C-156/94 : Commission of the
Fiscal Matters )) of 14 February 1996 , which was received at         European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom
the Court Registry on 2 October 1996 , for a preliminary              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Ireland, supported
ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil , SA          by the Republic of France .
v. Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
1 . Is the increase ( of 1% for each month that elapses
     without payment being made, following the 30th day
     after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
     the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 (') of 23 March 1992
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-115/96 ( )
     applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date                                    96/C 336/48 )
     falling after that 30th day ?
                                                                      By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Court of
2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a       from the register of Case C-l 55/96 ( reference for a
     distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in      preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta ( Customs
     circumstance like those in this case [see the facts proved]      Board ), Helsinki ): Application for an advance ruling by
     where the price of the imported goods, agreed as payable         Outokumpu Oy .
     in 90 days, was about 2,8 % greater than the price
     payable CAD ( cash against documents )?                          (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 December 1997 in Case C-265/95: Commission of the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of Spain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. French Republic (Free movement of goods - Agricultural products - Trade barriers resulting from actions by private individuals - Obligations of the Member States)

text:
C 55/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                3. orders the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom
                                                                        of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their
                     of 9 December 1997                                 own costs.
in Case C-265/95: Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Kingdom of Spain and United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. French             (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                          Republic (1)
(Free movement of goods Ð Agricultural products Ð
Trade barriers resulting from actions by private
      individuals Ð Obligations of the Member States)
                         (98/C 55/05)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                (Language of the case: French)                                           of 9 December 1997
                                                                    in Case C-353/95 P: TierceÂ Ladbroke SA v. Commission
                                                                    of the European Community, supported by the French
                                                                                Republic (1)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  (Competition Ð State aid Ð Levy on bets taken on horse-
                                                                    races Ð Transfer of resources to an undertaking
                                                                                established in another Member State)
In Case C-265/95: Commission of the European                                                 (98/C 55/06)
Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francis
Pasquier), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents:
Alberto JoseÂ Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de
Lapuerta), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted by Stephen                                (Language of the case: English)
Richards and Mark Hoskins) v. French Republic (Agents:
Jean-FrancËois Dobelle, Catherine de Salins, Anne de
Bourgoing and Philippe Martinet) Ð application for a
declaration that, by failing to take all necessary and
                                                                    In Case C-353/95P: TierceÂ Ladbroke SA, a company
proportionate measures in order to prevent the free
                                                                    incorporated under Belgian law, represented by Jeremy
movement of fruit and vegetables from being obstructed
                                                                    Lever QC, Christopher Vajda, Barrister, and Stephen Kon,
by actions by private individuals, the French Republic has
                                                                    Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
failed to fulfil its obligations under the common
                                                                    Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich,
organisation of the markets in agricultural products and
                                                                    appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with Article 5
                                                                    of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended
of that Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
                                                                    Composition) of 18 September 1995 in Case T-471/93
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
                                                                    TierceÂ Ladbroke v. Commission [1995] ECR II-2537,
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
                                                                    seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                    the proceedings being the Commission of the European
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Eric White) supported by the French
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges;
                                                                    Republic (Agents: Jean-FrancËois Dobelle, Catherine de
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                    Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey) Ð the Court composed of:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
9 December 1997, in which it:
                                                                    Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
                                                                    Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray,
                                                                    D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
                                                                    Judges, Advocate-General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: H.
1. declares that, by failing to adopt all necessary and
                                                                    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
     proportionate measures in order to prevent the free
                                                                    9 December 1997, in which it:
     movement of fruit and vegetables from being
     obstructed by actions by private individuals, the
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
     Article 5 of that Treaty, and under the common                 1. dismisses the appeal;
     organisations of the markets in agricultural products;
2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                     2. orders TierceÂ Ladbroke SA to pay the costs;


title: Case C-123/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/6

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-123/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of tax neutrality - Deduction of input VAT - Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ - Conditions for establishing a supply of goods - No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods))
   (2015/C 320/07)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Itales’ OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Operative part of the order

   The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-189/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DISCO DESIGNER — Earlier figurative Community mark DISCO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2013 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER)
   (Case T-189/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DISCO DESIGNER - Earlier figurative Community mark DISCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 71/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Yordanov (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and A. Pohlmann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (Case R 803/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA and Mr Peter Yordanov.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Peter Yordanov to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-261/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/52

         Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-261/16)
   (2016/C 270/60)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from the financing an amount of EUR 385 762,22 for expenditure declared by Portugal in the context of the Specific Aid Measure established pursuant to Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January, in the accounting years 2011, 2012 and 2013;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 46(2) of Commission Regulation No 1122/2009 — Observance by the Portuguese authorities of all the rules concerning checks on the ‘supplementary payment per dairy cow equivalent unit’, in the context of the Specific Aid established by the Portuguese Government pursuant to Article 86 of Regulation No 73/2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation No 1290/2005, by failing to meet the requirements established by the Commission in the uniform guidelines included in document No VI/5330/97, for the application of a financial correction at a flat rate of 2 %.


title: Case T-284/12: Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM — Merz Pharma (PROSEPT)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/25

         Action brought on 29 June 2012 — Oro Clean Chemie v OHIM — Merz Pharma (PROSEPT)
   (Case T-284/12)
   2012/C 258/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oro Clean Chemie AG (Fehraltorf, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2012 in Case R 1053/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘PROSEPT’ for goods in Class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8 353 245

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merz Pharma GmbH & Co. KGaA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Pursept’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-229/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel
   (Case C-229/06)
   (2006/C 190/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel
   Question referred
   Should shelled pumpkin seeds from pumpkins cultivated as vegetables, which have lost their ability to germinate and are intended for the baking industry, be classified under subheading 1209 91 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (1) or under subheading 1212 99 80 of the CN?

      (1)  Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff — OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.


title: Appeal brought on 25 April 1997 by Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH against the judgment delivered on 25 February 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94 between Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-161/97 P)

text:
No C 212/ 10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12 . 7 . 97
( d ) The fourth question concerns the process by which                 ( m ) The 11th question concerns the circumstances in
        usage comes into being; that is, whether consistent                      which insertion of the clause in question in a form
        incorporation of the clause in bills of lading issued by                 drawn up by one party but not signed by the other
        trade associations or a significant number of maritime                   party may be considered either an excessive burden
        transport undertakings is sufficient or whether it must                  on the latter or unlawful .
        be demonstrated that since users of such transport
        (whether traders or otherwise ) have not made any               ( n ) The 12th question involves ascertaining whether the
        observations or expressed reservations regarding                         party concerned was or ought to have been aware of
        consistent incorporation of the clause, they have                        the usage, other than with regard to the condition set
        tacitly acquiesced to the conduct of the other party,                     forth in paragraph (e ), above, as regards the bill of
        so that there may no longer be considered to be a                         lading itself, which contained numerous clauses
        dispute between them.                                                     appearing on the reserve ( paragraph ( b ), above ).
 ( e ) The fifth question concerns the form in which such
                                                                        ( o ) The 13th question involves identifying the person
        consistent practice is publicized, that is, whether the                   who is or ought to have been aware of the usage;
        bill of lading in which the jurisdiction clause is
                                                                                whether it must be the original shipper, even if he
        contained must be lodged at a particular office ( trade                   does not belong to a Contracting State ( such as, in
        association, chamber of commerce, port authorities,
                                                                                the present case, Argentina ), or whether it is sufficient
        and so on ) for consultation or must be brought to the                    for it to be the endorsee of the bill , who does belong
        notice of the public in some other way.
                                                                                to a Contracting State ( in the present case, Italy ).
 ( f) The sixth question concerns the validity of the clause,
        even where, by virtue of the substantive rules                   ( p ) The 14th question is concerned with whether the
        applicable in the chosen court, it takes the form of a                    phrase ' ought to have been aware' refers to the
        clause exempting the carrier from, or limiting, his                       criterion of good faith and objective lawfulness when
        liability.                                                                a particular contract was drawn up or to the criterion
                                                                                of ordinary care on the part of individuals who must
                                                                                be fully informed of current practices in international
 (g) The seventh question is concerned with whether the                           trade, for the purposes of paragraph ( i ), above .
        court ( other than the chosen court) which has been
        called upon to assess the validity of the clause may             (') Article 17 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 as
         examine the reasons for it, that is to say, the intention             amended by the Convention relating to the accession of the
         of the carrier in the choice of court made, as distinct               Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United Kingdom
         from the court which would have had jurisdiction                      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, signed at Luxembourg
         according to the usual criteria laid down in the                      on 9 October 1978 ( OJ No L 304, 30. 10 . 1978 , p. 1 ).
         Brussels Convention or by the lex fori.                         ( 2 ) [ 1984] ECR, p . 2417 .
  ( h ) The eighth question consists in ascertaining whether
         the fact that many shippers and/or endorsees of bills
         of lading have challenged the validity of the clause by
         bringing an action before a court other than that
         designated in the clause itself is indicative of the fact       Appeal brought on 25 April 1997 by Kernkraftwerke
         that usage regarding the insertion of the clause in             Lippe-Ems GmbH against the judgment delivered on
         forms has not become well established .                         25 February 1997 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended
  (i )   The ninth question consists in ascertaining whether              Composition ) in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94
         the usage must exist in all the countries of the                           between Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH and
         European Community or whether the expression                                 Commission of the European Communities
         ' international trade or commerce ' is intended to meari                                   Case C-161 /97 P )
         that it is sufficient for the usage to be practised in
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/ 19 )
         those countries which, in the context of international
         trade or commerce, have traditionally played a
         prominent role.                                                  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 February
                                                                          1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
   (1 )  The 10th question consists in ascertaining whether               Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition )
         the usage in question may derogate from mandatory                in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181 /94 between
          statutory provisions of individual States, such as, in          Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH and Commission of the
         Italy, Article 1341 of the Civil Code which, with                European Communities was brought before the Court of
          regard    to the general contractual terms and                  Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 1997 by
          conditions drawn up by one of the parties, provides             Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, represented by Bernd
          that, in order for the usage to be valid, the other             Kunth , Gerhard Wiedemann and Helmut Nicolaus,
          party must be or ought to have been aware of it and              Rechtsanwalte, of Kanzlei Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann,
          provides that clauses laying down particular                     Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
          limitations to or derogating from the jurisdiction of            the Chambers of Alex Bonn , 22 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
          the courts must be specifically approved.                        Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7. 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 212/ 11
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
                                                                             applicant's fifth plea in law alleging misuse of powers.
1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and                    Case          T- 181 / 94       concerning          Commission
     T-181 /94 H ;                                                    Decision 94 / 285 / Euratom of                    21 February
                                                                      1994 .
2 . declare that the Commission's decision of 4 February              — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
     1994 ( C(94 ) 243 final ) is null and void;                             applicant's first plea in law. According to the first two
                                                                             limbs of that plea, the Agency was obliged under
3 . declare that the Commission's decision of 21 February                    Article 5a of the above Regulation to conclude the
     1994 ( C(94 ) 344 final ) is null and void;                             contract submitted to it and breached that obligation
                                                                             by setting a condition concerning the origin of the
                                                                             materials at issue . Contrary to the findings of the
4 . order Euratom to pay damages of DM 3 511 279,30,                         Court of First Instance, there were no legal or material
     together with interest at 6% from 7 April 1994;                         obstacles, such as are referred to in Article 61 of the
                                                                             Euratom Treaty, to meeting the order at issue . It in no
                                                                             way endangered security of supply, the price in
5 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal                      question could not be regarded as contrary to the
     proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before                     commercial agreement between the Community and
     the Court of First Instance, together with the costs                    the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and meeting
     incurred during the pre-litigation procedure in so far                  that order does not compromise equality of access to
     as they are not already covered by the claim for                        sources of supply, referred to in Article 52 ( 1 ) of the
     damages at point 4 above .                                              Euratom Treaty. The Court of First Instance
                                                                             disregarded the fact that the Agency and the
                                                                             Commission only take into account the interests of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          producers, which is inconsistent with the aims of the
                                                                             Community laid down in Article 1 of the Euratom
Case         T-149 / 94      concerning          Commission
                                                                             Treaty (third and fourth limbs of the pleas ).
Decision 94 / 95 / Euratom of 4 February 1994 :
                                                                      — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
                                                                             applicant's second plea in law: the Agency breached
— the Court of Fist Instance wrongly rejected the                            the principle of legal certainty because the criteria on
     applicant's first and second pleas in law: it is clear                  which its decisions were based were not disclosed .
     that, under Article 5a ( d ) of the Rules of the Supply                 There was also a breach of the principle of equal
     Agency of determining the manner in which demand is                     treatment with respect to end users and of the
     to be balanced against the supply of ores, source                        principle of proportionality.
      materials and special fissile materials ( 2 ), the Agency
      could only conclude or refuse the contract submitted
      to it, and that a request for information on the                — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
      geographical origin of the materials in question was                    applicant's third plea in law: the Agency infringed the
      unjustifiable . Such a request could not extend the                     rules concerning the division of powers . It was not for
      strict time limit — 10 working days — within which                      the Agency to set a supply policy for the Community,
      the Agency is to act. The Court of First Instance                       a task for the political institutions, namely the Council
                                                                              and the Commission .
      wrongly assumed that the applicant knew the origin of
      the materials in question at the time of submitting the
      contract to the Agency.                                          — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
                                                                              applicant's fourth plea in law: the Commission did not
                                                                              take into account all the arguments put forward by the
 — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the                           applicant.
      applicant's third plea in law: since the Agency could
      only conclude or refuse the contract within the period
      prescribed, it thus infringed the rules regarding the            — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
       division of powers .                                                   applicant's fifth plea in law alleging a misuse of
                                                                              powers .
 — The Court of First Instance wrongly rejected the
       applicant's fourth plea in law: so far as concerns the          — Lastly, the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing
       request for information, the duty to state reasons is                   the claim for damages .
       incumbent not only on the Commission when it takes
       decisions under the second paragraph of Article 53 of           (<) OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997, p . 20 .
       the Euratom Treaty, but also on the Agency. The                 ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1959—62, p. 46 , as
       statement of reasons given in the Commission 's                       amended on 15 July 1975 ( OJ No L 193 , 25 . 7. 1975 , p. 37 ).
       decision is incorrect and confuses the country of origin
       with the source of supply.


title: Case T-650/16: Action brought on 7 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/58

         Action brought on 7 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (QD)
   (Case T-650/16)
   (2016/C 402/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘QD’ — Application for registration No 13 633 516

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2016 in Case R 2046/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05 and C-450/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin and Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Doris Habelt (C-396/05), Martha Möser (C-419/05) and Peter Wachter (C-450/05) v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Annexes III and VI — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC — Old-age benefits — Periods of contribution completed outside the Federal Republic of Germany — Not exportable)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin and Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Doris Habelt (C-396/05), Martha Möser (C-419/05) and Peter Wachter (C-450/05) v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05 and C-450/05) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Annexes III and VI - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC - Old-age benefits - Periods of contribution completed outside the Federal Republic of Germany - Not exportable)
   (2008/C 51/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring courts
   Sozialgericht Berlin and Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Doris Habelt (C-396/05), Martha Möser (C-419/05) and Peter Wachter (C-450/05)

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Berlin — Interpretation of Article 42 of the EC Treaty — Validity of Annex VI D. (Germany), No 1, to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition, 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — Refusal to pay German old-age benefits in respect of periods of employment completed between 1939 and 1945 in the Sudetenland to a German national who has taken up residence in Belgium
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The provisions of Annex VI, Part C, headed ‘Germany’, point 1, to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are incompatible with freedom of movement for persons, and, in particular, with Article 42 EC, in that they make it possible, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to make the inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of contribution periods completed between 1937 and 1945 on the parts of the territory where the social security legislation of the German Reich was applicable, but which are outside the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, subject to the condition that the recipient reside in the territory of that Member State.

               2)

               The provisions of Annex III, Parts A and B, point 35, headed ‘Germany-Austria’, under (e), to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, are incompatible with Article 39 EC and Article 42 EC in that they make it possible, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where the recipient resides in Austria, to make the inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of contribution periods completed under the law on pension rights acquired by contribution abroad (Fremdrentengesetz) between 1953 and 1970 in Romania subject to the condition that the recipient reside in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

               3)

               The provisions of Annex VI, Part C, headed ‘Germany’, point 1, to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, are incompatible with freedom of movement for persons and, in particular, with Article 42 EC, in that they make it possible, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to make the inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of contribution periods completed under the law on pension rights acquired by contribution abroad between 1953 and 1970 in Romania subject to the condition that the recipient reside in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

      OJ C 22, 25.3.2006.


title: Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Società Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-167/96)

text:
No C 40/22           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Prolafer Sri                    The applicant therefore alleges infringement of Decision
   against the Commission of the European Communities                3855/91 /ECSC and the erroneous and discriminatory
                        ( Case T-165/96 )
                                                                     interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 4
                                                                     thereof.
                           ( 97/C 40/51 )
                                                                     O Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC of 27 November
                                                                         1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                         industry ( OJ No L 362 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 57 ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                   Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Ferriera
1996 by Prolafer Sri , whose registered office is at Bergamo         Acciaieria Casilina SpA against the Commission of the
(Italy ), represented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of                             European Communities
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                ( Case T-166/96 )
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
application and annul the contested measures .                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  1996 by Societa Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, whose
                                                                     registered office is at Rome , represented by Carmine Punzi
                                                                     and Filippo Satta, of the Rome Bar, with an address for
The applicant, a steel company which is in liquidation,              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk ,
has brought an action directed against the same decision             13A Avenue Guillaume .
which is the subject matter of Case T-164/96 Moccia Irme
v. Commission, in so far as it affects it, and also against          The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
the decision of 12 December 1994 , in so far as, in order            application and annul the contested measures .
to define the criteria under the second indent of the
second paragraph of Article 4 of the 'Steel Aid Code ' ( 1 ),        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
it has provided that ' regularly produced' must be
understood as meaning production ' in 1993 [...] on                  The applicant, an Italian steel company, has brought an
average one shift per day, that is, at least 8 hours per day,        action directed principally against the same decision which
5 days per week ', without taking account of interruptions           is the subject-matter of Cases T-l 64/96 Moccia Irme SpA
to production resulting from force majeure.                          v. Commission and T-165/96 Prolafer v. Commission, in
                                                                     so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                     The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
The applicant points out that its lack of production during          already relied on in the abovementioned cases.
the reference period is not due to a management choice
but arises solely and exclusively from a measure taken by
the Italian criminal judicial authority which has ordered
the attachment of its plant on grounds of environmental
pollution .
                                                                     Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Societa Dora
                                                                     Ferriera Acciaieria Sri, in liquidation, against the
In its view, it is unlawful to allow State aid for the                         Commission of the European Communities
scrapping of steel plant on condition that there has been                                     ( Case T-l 67/96 )
regular production in the brief reference period, without
taking into account that such regularity may have been                                            ( 97/C 40/53 )
prevented by factors wholly outwith the control of the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
 undertaking .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant further alleges that . the principle of equal          Instance of the European Communities on 19 October
 treatment has been breached inasmuch as the Commission               1996 by Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Sri , in liquidation,
 has approved such aid intended for undertakings which               whose registered office is in Bergamo, represented by
 had not reached the minimum level of production. In view             Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta , of the Rome Bar, with
 of this, it cannot be seen why a voluntary interruption of           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 the production cycle may justify failure to reach the                Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume .
 minimum level of production , while a total block on
 activity imposed by an order of the criminal judicial                The applicant claims that the Court should uphold the
 authority is held to be irrelevant to that end.                      application and annul the contested measures .
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97            I tN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40 / 23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          27 July 1995 seeking, first, the provision of a valid
                                                                             staff report for 1991 to 1993 and , second, payment of
The applicant, an Italian steel company in liquidation, has
                                                                             compensation for the non-material damage suffered as
brought an action directed principally against the same                      a result of non-compliance with the rules on the
decision which is the subject matter of Cases T-l 64/96
                                                                             drawing-up of staff reports and the belated inclusion
Moccia Irme SpA v. Commission and T-l 65/96 Prolafer v.
Commission, in so far as it concerns itself.
                                                                             of the report in his personal file,
The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
already relied on in the abovementioned cases.                               decision of 18 July 1996 expressly rejecting the
                                                                             applicant's complaint No R/l 47/96 ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non
                                                                             material damage suffered, in the sum of Bfrs 500 000
Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Salini                                 or such other sum as the Court may consider fair and
Costruttori SpA against the Commission of the European                       reasonable,
                            Communities
                         ( Case T-l 88/96 )                             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 40/54 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant contests the fact that, on 20 January 1995 ,
An action against the Commission of the European                        the appointing authority officially recorded receipt of his
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       staff report for 1991 to 1993 and placed it on his personal
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     file, whereas that report was merely a reiteration of his
 1996 by Salini Costruttori SpA, whose registered office is             report for the period 1989 to 1991 .
in Rome, represented by Jean-Pierre Cuny, of the                        By note dated 25 July 1995 , the applicant submitted a
Versailles Bar ( France ).                                              request within the meaning of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff
The applicant claims that the Court should declare                      Regulations, applying in particular for a report to be
unlawful the Commission's failure to fulfil its obligation              drawn up in the prescribed manner in respect of the
to address to the Italian Government a decision based on                period under consideration . The Commission expressly
Article 93 ( 2 ) and Article 101 of the Treaty.                         rejected the request. The complaint lodged against the
                                                                        rejection decision was partially refused, in that the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    administration offered him, by way of reparation for the
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                   non-material damage suffered, compensation of
 those relied on in Case T-l 87/96 .                                    Bfrs 35 000 .
                                                                        The present action is directed against that latter decision .
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that there
                                                                         has been a breach of the duty to have regard for the
 Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Lars Bo                           welfare and interests of officials, a breach of the principle
 Rasmussen against the Commission of the European                        of equality of treatment and an infringement of Articles 26
                             Communities
                                                                         and 43 of the Staff Regulations .
                          ( Case T-193/96 )
                                                                         He observes in that regard that the reiterated staff report,
                              ( 97/C 40/55 )                             corresponding to the period from 1989 to 1991 , covered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        only four months spent in Directorate D of DG V. That
                                                                         report was drawn up by the Director-General of the
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Translation Service and, since the applicant was assigned
  Communities was brought before the Court of First                      on    1   March    1991    to  the   Directorate-General    for
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                     Employment, there has necessarily been a radical change
  1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim                          of duties, and also of reporting officer. In those
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                  circumstances, reiteration of the staff report should not
  Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          and could not have been possible .
  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de Longwy.
                                                                          In addition, the applicant considers that he is entitled, like
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                            any other official , to a valid staff report, so that the
  — annul the decision of the appointing authority                        competent authorities can decide on his eligibility for
        rejecting the applicant's request No D/661 /95 of                 promotion and career.