title: Case T-190/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark 5 HTP — Absolute ground of refusal — Signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distinctive character acquired by use — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP)
   (Case T-190/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark 5 HTP - Absolute ground of refusal - Signs or indications which have become customary - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distinctive character acquired by use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 120/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Longevity Health Products Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J.E. Korab, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Performing Science LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: D. Plasser, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Longevity Health Products Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case F-45/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — BT v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Non-renewal of the contract — Insufficient grounds stated for the action — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 — BT v Commission
   (Case F-45/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Contract staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Insufficient grounds stated for the action - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 46/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BT (Bucharest, Romania)) (represented by: N. Visan, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               BT must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012, p. 21.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 2003 in Case C-221/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs)

text:
C 55/2                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 8.3.2003
dangerous substances (OJ 1999 L 329, p. 100), the Court,                     1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-               European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans                        (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), and under Article 28 EC, the Court
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                   (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 President of the Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;                N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
judgment on 21 January 2003, in which it:                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,
                                                                             in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by laying down a general prohibition of health-
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;                     related information on the labelling of foodstuffs for general
                                                                                consumption and by subjecting the display of such information
3.     Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.                        to a prior authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1)
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                          and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December
                                                                                1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                                relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
                                                                                foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997;
                                                                             2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3.     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 23 January 2003                                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
in Case C-221/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria ( 1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             foodstuffs)
                           (2003/C 55/03)                                                                of 21 January 2003
                    (Language of the case: German)                           in Case C-318/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales, Queen’s
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       bench Division): Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier des Dau-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                phins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd (1),
                                                                             (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide
In Case C-221/00, Commission of the European Communities                     services — Refusal to display advertisements for alcoholic
(Agent: J. C. Schieferer) v Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi)            drinks at a sporting event taking place in a Member State
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: C. P. Kristensen):                   whose law allows television advertising for alcoholic drinks
Application for a declaration that, by interpreting and applying             but being broadcast on television in another Member State
Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr                  whose law prohibits such advertising — Relevance of the
mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten, Zusatzstoffen, kosme-                         questions for the outcome of the main proceedings)
tischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen (Lebensmittelge-
setz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs, products                                                   (2003/C 55/04)
intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic prod-
ucts and consumer goods) of 23 January 1975 as meaning
that health-related information on foodstuffs for general                                          (Language of the case: English)
consumption is prohibited in a general and absolute manner,
and by subjecting the affixing of such information to a prior
authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of           In Case C-318/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ                pending before that court between Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier


title: Case C-345/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Case T-41/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin — ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Rejection of opposition — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/33

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
   (Case T-41/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin - ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ - Rejection of opposition - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2016/C 191/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd (Nicosia), Süt Ürünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia), and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, J. Guillem Carrau and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the grant of interim measures relating to the procedure for registration of the cheese referred to as ‘halloumi/hellim’ as a protected designation of origin under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-444/09: Action brought on 29 October 2009 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/34

         Action brought on 29 October 2009 — La City v OHIM — Bücheler and Ewert
   (Case T-444/09)
   2010/C 11/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: La City (La Courneuve, France) (represented by: S. Bénoliel-Claux, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert (Engelskirchen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 5 August 2009 in Case R 233/2008-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Andreas Bücheler and Konstanze Ewert

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘citydogs’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 692 381)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French word mark ‘CITY’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25; the opposition is against registration in Classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) owing to the absence of likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue


title: Case C-45/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg lodged on  30 January 2006  — Campina GmbH & G. formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg lodged on 30 January 2006 — Campina GmbH & G. formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-45/06)
   (2006/C 154/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Campina GmbH & G. formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH

      Defendant: Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   Question referred
   Does the system of penalties laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (2), contravene the principle of proportionality in cases where the time-limit is exceeded only marginally and, moreover, without appreciable effect?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 57, p.22.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22.


title: Case T-325/07: Action brought on 3 September 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (SURFCARD)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/52

         Action brought on 3 September 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (SURFCARD)
   (Case T-325/07)
   (2007/C 269/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schoumann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007, Case R 1130/2006-1 refusing application for registration of Community trade mark ‘SURFCARD’, application No 3 837 564, for goods and services sought in classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               Registration of Community trade mark ‘SURFCARD’ No 3 837 564 for all of the goods and services sought.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SURFCARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (application No 3 837 564)

      Decision of examiner: Application for registration partially refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Action dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation No 40/94 of the Council (1) in that, according to the applicant and contrary to observations in the contested decision, the expression ‘SURFCARD’ is arbitrary and distinctive in relation to the goods and services sought.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 9 October 1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry Taylor (Case C-382/98)

text:
19.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 397/21
Under English law, effect will be given to the applicable             2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
law as chosen by the parties, unless there is a public policy
reason, such as an overriding provision, for not so doing.
In such circumstances, are the provisions of Council                       (a) Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC apply
Directive 86/653/EEC (1), as implemented in the laws of                         in the circumstances of this case?
the Member States, and in particular those provisions
relating to the payment of compensation to agents on
termination of their agreements with their principals,                     (b) In particular, is the Respondent prevented from
applicable when:                                                                relying upon Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC
                                                                                where both the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment
                                                                                Regulations 1998 and the Social Security
(i)   a principal appoints an exclusive agent in United                         Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 under which
      Kingdom and Republic of Ireland for the sale of its                       those Regulations were made came into force
      products therein; and                                                     after 23 December 1984, the latest date for the
                                                                                said Directive to be given full effect in domestic
                                                                                law?
(ii) in so far as sales of the products in the United
      Kingdom are concerned, the agent carries out its                (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978, on the
      activities in the United Kingdom; and                               progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                          for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6,
                                                                          10.1.1979, p. 24).
(iii) the principal is a company incorproated in a non-EU
      State, and in particular in the State of California,
      USA and situated there; and
(iv) the express applicable law of the contract between
      the parties is that of the State of California, USA?            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof by order of 29 September 1998 in the case of
                                                                      The Polo/Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng
(1) Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, on the                     Pratama International Freight Forwarders
    coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
    employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17).                                (Case C-383/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/37)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of 29 September 1998
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court),
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 9 October                 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Polo/
1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State             Lauren Company v. PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama
       for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry Taylor               International Freight Forwarders on the following
                        (Case C-382/98)                               question:
                          (98/C 397/36)
                                                                      On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                  counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341, 30.12.1994) also
Divisional Court, of 9 October 1998, which was received               applicable to situations in which goods of the type
at the Court Registry on 26 October 1998, for a                       specified therein are, in the course of transit between two
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against                   countries not belonging to the European Community,
Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte: John Henry          temporarily detained by the customs authorities in a
Taylor, on the following questions:                                   Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the
                                                                      request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights
                                                                      have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
                                                                      registered office in a non-member country?
1. Is a winter fuel payment made under Regulation 2(5),
     2(6) and 3(1)(b) of the Social Fund Winter Fuel
     Payment Regulations 1998 within the scope of
     Article 3 of Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?


title: Case C-173/02: Action brought on 13 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/21
Action brought on 13 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain                    to gain access to an additional quota which it would be
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     impossible to finance in full (by means of an allocation free of
                                                                         charge), given the limited funds available. Finally, the aid
                                                                         granted does not, and cannot, affect either prices or the total
                                                                         quantities produced.
                        (Case C-173/02)
                        (2002/C 169/37)                                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
                                                                             establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
                                                                             sector, amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/1999 of
                                                                             17 May 1999 (OJ L 160 of 16.6.1999, p. 73).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 13 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
represented by S. Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,
4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 8 March 2002
                                                                         in the appeal brought by Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Brabant and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 12 March 2002                                            (Case C-174/02)
      declaring the aid paid to producers of cows’ milk for the
      purchase of reference quantities incompatible with the
      common market and ordering it to be repaid; and                                             (2002/C 169/38)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 8 March
                                                                         2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Streekgewest
                                                                         Westelijk Noord-Brabant and Staatssecretaris van Financiën,
                                                                         on the following questions:
Infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC in that the measure             1.    May only an individual who is affected by a distortion of
at issue is protected by the regulation on the common                          cross-border competition as a result of an aid measure
organisation of the market (COM) in milk and milk products.                    rely on the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty
The measures at issue cannot be challenged as contrary to the                  (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC)?
COM in a case in which the latter specifically provides for
mechanisms comparable to those adopted and which are
directed to the same end. The aid granted is not intended to             2.    Where an aid measure within the meaning of the last
cover operating costs but is granted in respect of a production                sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now the last
right, which is a capital asset of the agricultural holding itself.            sentence of Article 88(3) EC) consists of an exemption
The aid is consonant with the objectives laid down in the rules                from a tax (which is to be construed as also meaning a
establishing the additional levy, namely the restructuring of                  reduction in or relief on such tax) whose proceeds are
the milk sector, given that its aim is to improve production                   paid into the public coffers, and no provision in that
structures in the dairy sector, which is fundamental to the                    respect is made for suspending the exemption pending
regional economy of Asturias. The fact that it does not exactly                the notification procedure, must that tax be regarded as
coincide with the mechanism provided for in the COM does                       part of that aid measure, by virtue of the very fact that
not render it contrary to the scheme, since the degree of                      the levying of the tax on persons who do not enjoy an
intervention involved is less than that provided for and                       exemption is the means whereby a favourable effect is
authorised. Instead of allocating quotas free of charge as                     produced, so that as long as the implementation of that
provided for in the first indent of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC)              aid measure is not permitted under the abovementioned
No 3950/92 (1), the Asturian authorities are making more                       provision, the prohibition laid down therein is also
efficient use of public resources, enabling a group of farmers                 applicable to (the levying of) that tax?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-344/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 93/62/EEC, 93/63/EEC, 93/64/EEC, 93/78/EEC, 93/79/EEC and 94/3/EC)

text:
C 151/2               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.5.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     transferee may claim, as against the transferee, that
                                                                         their dismissal was unlawful.
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 12 March 1998                              (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
in Case C-319/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail, LieÁge): Jules Dethier EÂquipment SA v.
       Jules Dassy and Sovam SPRL, in liquidation (1)
(Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers
of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses Ð
Transfer of an undertaking being wound up voluntarily or                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
by the court Ð Power of the transferor and transferee to                                   (Fifth Chamber)
dismiss     employees      for   economic,     technical    or
organisational reasons Ð Employees dismissed shortly                                      of 12 March 1998
   before the transfer and not taken on by the transferee)
                                                                    in    Case C-344/96: Commission of the European
                         (98/C 151/02)                                     Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
                                                                    Directives 93/62/EEC, 93/63/EEC, 93/64/EEC, 93/78/
                (Language of the case: French)                                     EEC, 93/79/EEC and 94/3/EC)
                                                                                (98/C 151/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-319/94: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail (Higher
Labour Court), LieÁge, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                    In Case C-344/96: Commission of the European
the proceedings pending before that court between, first,
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) v. Federal
Jules Dethier EÂquipment SA and, secondly, Jules Dassy
                                                                    Republic of Germany (Agent: Ernst Röder) Ð application
and Sovam SPRL, in liquidation Ð on the interpretation
                                                                    for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the
of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on
                                                                    periods prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                    provisions needed to comply with:
relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
businesses (OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                    Ð Commission Directive 93/62/EEC of 5 July 1993
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
                                                                         setting out the implementing measures concerning the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray,
                                                                         supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                         establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/33/
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
                                                                         EEC on the marketing of vegetable propagating and
which it has ruled:
                                                                         planting material, other than seed (OJ L 250,
                                                                         7.10.1993, p. 29),
1. On a proper construction of Article 1(1) of Council
    Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the                 Ð Commission Directive 93/63/EEC of 5 July 1993
    approximation of the laws of the Member States                       setting out the implementing measures concerning the
    relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the             supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
    event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts              establishments pursuant to Council Directive 91/682/
    of businesses, that Directive applies in the event of the            EEC on the marketing of ornamental plant
    transfer of an undertaking which is being wound up                   propagating material and ornamental plants (OJ L 250,
    by the court if the undertaking continues to trade.                  7.10.1993, p. 31),
                                                                    Ð Commission Directive 93/64/EEC of 5 July 1993
2. On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Directive                 setting out the implementing measures concerning the
    77/187, both the transferor and the transferee may                   supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
    dismiss employees for economic, technical or                         establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/34/
    organisational      reasons.    Employees      unlawfully            EEC on the marketing of fruit plant propagating
    dismissed by the transferor shortly before the                       material and fruit plants intended for fruit production
    undertaking is transferred and not taken on by the                   (OJ L 250, 7.10.1993, p. 33),
 ---pagebreak--- 16.5.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 151/3
Ð Commission Directive 93/78/EEC of 21 September                           Ð Commission Directive 93/79/EEC of 21 September
    1993 setting out additional implementing provisions                        1993 setting out additional implementing
    for lists of varieties of ornamental plant propagating                     provisions for lists of varieties of fruit plant
    material and ornamental plants, as kept by suppliers                       propagating material and fruit plants, as kept by
    under Council Directive 91/682/EEC (OJ L 256,                              suppliers under Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
    14.10.1993, p. 19),
                                                                           the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
Ð Commission Directive 93/79/EEC of 21 September                           obligations under the EC Treaty;
    1993 setting out additional implementing provisions
    for lists of varieties of fruit plant propagating material
                                                                      2. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
    and fruit plants, as kept by suppliers under Council
                                                                           application in so far as it relates to Commission
    Directive 92/34/EEC (OJ L 256, 14.10.1993, p. 25),
                                                                           Directive 94/3/EC, of 21 January 1994, establishing a
    and
                                                                           procedure for the notification of interception of a
                                                                           consignment or a harmful organism from third
Ð Commission Directive 94/3/EC of 21 January 1994                          countries and presenting an imminent phytosanitary
    establishing a procedure for the notification of                       danger;
    interception of a consignment or a harmful organism
    from third countries and presenting an imminent                   3. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    phytosanitary danger (OJ L 32, 5.2.1994, p. 37),                       costs, including those consequent upon the partial
                                                                           discontinuance of the proceedings by the Commission.
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth                    (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
12 March 1998, in which it:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods                                      (Sixth Chamber)
    prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
    provisions needed to comply with,                                                        of 12 March 1998
                                                                      in    Case   C-163/97: Commission of the European
    Ð Commission Directive 93/62/EEC of 5 July 1993                              Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
        setting out the implementing measures concerning              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
        the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and                         Failure to transpose Directive 92/74/EEC)
        establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/
        33/EEC on the marketing of vegetable propagating                                       (98/C 151/04)
        and planting material, other than seed,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    Ð Commission Directive 93/63/EEC of 5 July 1993
        setting out the implementing measures concerning
        the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        establishments pursuant to Council Directive 91/                        published in the European Court Reports)
        682/EEC on the marketing of ornamental plant
        propagating material and ornamental plants,
                                                                      In Case C-163/97: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. Kingdom of
    Ð Commission Directive 93/64/EEC of 5 July 1993
                                                                      Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a
        setting out the implementing measures concerning
                                                                      declaration that, by not giving notification of or by not
        the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                      adopting the measures necessary in order to transpose
        establishments pursuant to Council Directive 92/
                                                                      Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992
        34/EEC on the marketing of fruit plant
                                                                      widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the
        propagating material and fruit plants intended for
                                                                      approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation
        fruit production,
                                                                      or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                      products and laying down additional provisions on
    Ð Commission Directive 93/78/EEC of 21 September                  homeopathic veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 297,
        1993 setting out additional implementing                      13.10.1992, p. 12), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
        provisions for lists of varieties of ornamental plant         fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that
        propagating material and ornamental plants, as                Directive Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
        kept by suppliers under Council Directive 91/682/             Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
        EEC, and                                                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and K. M.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-239/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — EAGGF — Partial annulment of Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 — Special market support measures in the beef sector — Implementing regulation of the Commission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Member States)

text:
C 275/14                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             15.11.2003
2.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39           company established in that second Member State, and made
      EC) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the              available to the worker by his employer who is also established in the
      Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                   second Member State.
      workers within the Community are to be interpreted as meaning
      that they preclude the grant, under conditions such as those laid
                                                                              (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
      down in Article 50a of the Gehaltsgesetz 1956 (law on salaries
      of 1956), as amended in 1997, of a special length-of-
      service increment which, according to the interpretation of the
      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) in its judgment of 24 June
      1998, constitutes a loyalty bonus.
3.    An infringement of Community law, such as that stemming in                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the circumstances of the main proceedings from the judgment
      of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 24 June 1998, does not have                                   of 30 September 2003
      the requisite manifest character for liability under Community
      law to be incurred by a Member State for a decision of one of           in Case C-239/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
      its courts adjudicating at last instance.                                         mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                    (Agriculture — EAGGF — Partial annulment of Regulation
                                                                              (EC) No 690/2001 — Special market support measures in
                                                                              the beef sector — Implementing regulation of the Com-
                                                                              mission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Mem-
                                                                                ber States)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/23)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         of 2 October 2003                                                        in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-232/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Politierechtbank te Mechelen): Criminal procedure                         In Case C-239/01, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D.
                     against Hans van Lent (1)                                Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Sedemund) supported
                                                                              by Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Molde and J. Bering
                                                                              Liisberg) with an address for service in Luxembourg v Com-
(Freedom of movement for workers — Vehicle leasing —                          mission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and
Obligation to register vehicle in worker’s Member State of                    M. Niejahr): Application for annulment of Article 5(5) of
                               residence)                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001
                                                                              on special market support measures in the beef sector (OJ
                           (2003/C 275/22)                                    2001 L 95, p. 8), in so far as that provision requires each
                                                                              Member State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                            meat purchased under that regulation, the Court, composed of:
                                                                              G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
                                                                              R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
                                                                              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case C-232/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    30 September 2003, in which it:
EC by the Politierechtbank te Mechelen (Belgium) for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                    1.    Annuls Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/
court against Hans van Lent, on the interpretation of Article                       2001 of 3 April 2001 on special market support measures in
39 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                         the beef sector in so far as that provision requires each Member
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr                       State concerned to finance 30 % of the price of the meat
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                      purchased under that regulation;
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                    2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
Article 39 EC precludes national rules of a Member State, such as
those in the present case, which prohibit a worker who is domiciled           (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
in that Member State from using on its territory a vehicle registered
in another neighbouring Member State, belonging to a leasing


title: Case C-362/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 17 September 1999 in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim

text:
18.12.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 366/15
      Finally, the Commission should have cleared the notified           On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
      measures in accordance with Article 87(2)(c) of the EC             Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
      Treaty. Despite knowledge of all the relevant. circum-             down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
      stances, the Commission passes over that provision with-           export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
      out a word of justification.                                       counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                                                                         Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
— Legally erroneous assumption of aid elements in the                    situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
      privatisation procedure: The Commission wrongly                    the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
      assumes, with reference to the case-law of the Court of            the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
      Justice (4), that in the sale/liquidation comparative cost         toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
      accounting only the liquidation value determined by the            regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
      accountants was to be taken into account. Under German             his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has its
      law, however, the owner is responsible both for the                registered office in a non-member country?
      liquidation costs and the costs of restoring the site, and in
      this case the loans from shareholders could not be called
      in from the mass of the insolvency.
      The Commission’s criticism of the privatisation procedure
      expressed in the contested decision infringes the prohib-
      ition of contradictory conduct, since in many cases the
      Commission made on objection to comparable privatisa-
      tion procedures. Moreover, the Commission’s demands are
      not based on a realistic assessment even of the procedures
      that are normal even in the private sector for the disposal
      of shareholdings through the intervention of investment
      banks. The Federal Government therefore takes the view             Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Portuguese
      that the privatisation as such does not contain any aids.          Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
      That is, however, ignored by the Commission. On this                                           munities
      point, moreover, insufficient grounds are stated for the
      decision (infringement of the fourth indent of the second
      subparagraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Treaty, Article 15                                   (Case C-365/99)
      of that treaty, and Article 253 of the EC Treaty).
                                                                                (1999/C 366/24)
( 1) OJ No C 320 of 13.12.1988, p. 3.
( 2) OJ No L 198 of 30.7.1999, p. 1.
( 3) OJ No L 128 of 21.5.1999, p. 1.                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 4) Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Com-
     mission (1994) ECR I-4103.
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 4 October 1999 by the Portuguese Republic,
                                                                         represented by Luı́s Fernandes, Director of the Legal Service of
                                                                         the Directorate-General for the European Communities of the
                                                                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Maria João Abecassis, Assistant
                                                                         in the Private Office of the Minister for Agriculture, Rural
                                                                         Development and Fisheries, acting as Agents, and by Carlos
                                                                         Aguiar and Tiago Ferreira de Lima, of the Lisbon Bar, and
                                                                         Gerard van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                  Scheffer.
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 17 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v
                        Mohammed Ibrahim
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-362/99)
                                                                         a) declare the present action admissible;
                          (1999/C 366/23)
                                                                         b) annul Commission Decision 99/517/EC (1) in so far as it
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        replaced the words ‘1 August 1999’ in Article 4 of Decision
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                            98/653/EC (2) with the words ‘1 February 2000’;
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 17 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 30 September 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of SEIKO Kabushiki Kaisha v               c) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
Mohammed Ibrahim on the following question:                                   Portuguese Republic.


title: Case T-191/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC Foret v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/41

         Action brought on 18 July 2006 — FMC Foret v Commission
   (Case T-191/06)
   (2006/C 212/71)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: FMC Foret S.A. (Sant Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: M. Seimetz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant, as far as it is concerned, seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate, on the basis of which the Commission found that the undertakings concerned had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a single and continuous infringement regarding hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate, covering the whole EEA territory, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements.
   In support of its claims for a reduction of charges, the applicant mainly contends the evidentiary standard set by the Commission on its behalf and, secondly, pleads violation of its rights of defence.
   The applicant, first, claims the Commission has failed to discharge the burden of proof and has not engaged in a reasonable appraisal of the evidence relating to the existence of a cartel. Thus, the applicant criticises the Commission for having relied on vague and uncorroborated allegations contained in leniency applications submitted by other undertakings, despite its Hearing Officer concerns.
   The applicant further submits that both its testimony and evidence produced at various instances of the procedure in order to demonstrate the falsity of submissions against it went unchallenged, to be finally rejected by the Commission without justification.
   The applicant, secondly, accuses the Commission of having wrongfully withheld evidence from it. In this respect, it was allegedly denied the right of defence with regards to access in the replies given to the Commission's Statement of Objections, while it claims to have demonstrated, in its own reply, its refusal to participate in cartel activities.
   Finally, FMC Foret estimates the fine levied by the Commission against it excessive and disproportionate with regard to its turnover and given the wholly passive role it claims to have played in the alleged cartel.


title: Case C-132/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Lidl Magyarország Kereskedelmi bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa (Free movement of goods — Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment — Mutual recognition of conformity — Non-recognition of the declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer established in another Member State)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Lidl Magyarország Kereskedelmi bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa
   (Case C-132/08) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment - Mutual recognition of conformity - Non-recognition of the declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer established in another Member State)
   2009/C 153/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl Magyarország Kereskedelmi bt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővarosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 30 EC, of Article 8 of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10) and of Articles 2(e) and (f), 6(1) and 8(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ 2002 L 11, p. 4) — National legislation requiring importers of radio equipment using frequency bands whose use is not harmonised throughout the Community and bearing the CE mark to issue a declaration of conformity in accordance with the provisions of national law, even if the equipment at issue is accompanied by a declaration of conformity issued by the producer established ion another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Member States cannot require a person who places radio equipment on the market to provide a declaration of conformity even though the producer of that equipment, whose head office is situated in another Member State, has affixed the ‘CE’ marking to that product and issued a declaration of conformity in its regard.

               2.

               Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety does not apply to the determination of questions concerning the obligation of a person to provide a declaration of conformity of radio equipment. As regards the power of the Member States, in accordance with Directive 2001/95, in connection with the marketing of radio equipment, to impose obligations other than the presentation of a declaration of conformity, a person who markets a product may be regarded as being the producer of that product only under the conditions laid down by Directive 2001/95 itself in Article 2(e), and as being the distributor of that product only under the conditions set out in Article 2(f). The producer and the distributor may be bound only by obligations which Directive 2001/95 imposes on each of them respectively.

               3.

               Where a matter is regulated in a harmonised manner at Community level, any national measure relating thereto must be assessed in the light of the provisions of that harmonising measure and not in that of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. In matters coming under Directive 1999/5 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, Member States must comply in full with the provisions of that directive and may not maintain in force contrary national provisions. In the case where a Member State takes the view that conformity with a harmonised standard does not guarantee compliance with the essential requirements laid down by Directive 1999/5 which that standard is supposed to cover, that Member State is required to follow the procedure set out in Article 5 of that directive. By contrast, a Member State may, in support of a restriction, invoke grounds external to the field harmonised by Directive 1999/5. In such a case, it may invoke only the reasons laid down in Article 30 EC or mandatory requirements relating to the public interest.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-69/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders — Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Role of the national court — Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision — Principle of cooperation in good faith)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy)) — Mediaset SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico
   (Case C-69/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Subsidised purchase or renting of digital decoders - Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Quantification of the amount to be recovered - Role of the national court - Taking into consideration by the national court of the positions of the Commission in the enforcement of its decision - Principle of cooperation in good faith)
   2014/C 93/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mediaset SpA

      Defendant: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Roma — Recovery of unlawful State aid — Quantification of the amount to be recovered — Commission decision laying down criteria for determining that amount — Judgment of the Court recognising that the national court has the power to assess whether the criteria laid down by the Commission are appropriate — Extent of the national court’s discretion.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Although, in order to ensure that a European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid in question, but not identifying the individual recipients of that aid and not determining the precise amounts to be recovered is executed, the national court is bound by that decision, it is not, however, bound by the positions adopted by that institution in the execution of that decision. Nevertheless, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, the national court must take the statements of position into account as a factor in the assessment of the dispute before it.

               2.

               The national court, when determining the exact amounts of aid to be recovered and where the European Commission, in its decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, has not identified the individual recipients of the aid in question or determined the precise amounts to be repaid, may conclude, without calling into question the validity of the European Commission’s decision or the obligation to repay the aid in question, that the amount of aid to be repaid is equal to zero where that follows from the calculations made on the basis of all the relevant information of which it has been made aware.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-354/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Community Customs Code — Article 33 — Value of goods for customs purposes — Inclusion of the customs duties — Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ )

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gaston Schul BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-354/09) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 33 - Value of goods for customs purposes - Inclusion of the customs duties - Delivery term ‘Delivered Duty Paid’)
   2010/C 246/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gaston Schul BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Interpretation of Article 33(1)(f) and Article 220 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs value — Contract containing the term of delivery ‘Delivered Duty Paid’ concluded on the assumption that no customs duties would be payable — Amount not mentioned — Exclusion from or inclusion in the customs value

      Operative part of the judgment

   The condition specified in Article 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, to the effect that import duties must be ‘shown separately’ from the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, is satisfied in the case where the parties to the contract have agreed that those goods are to be delivered DDP (‘Delivered Duty Paid’) and have incorporated that information in the customs declaration but, by reason of a mistake as to the preferential origin of those goods, have failed to state the amount of the import duties.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-375/17: Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/38

         Action brought on 5 June 2017 — Fenyves v EUIPO (Blue)
   (Case T-375/17)
   (2017/C 256/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Klaudia Patricia Fenyves (Hevesvezekény, Hungary) (represented by: I. Monteiro Alves, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘BLUE’ — Application for registration No 15 287 907

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2017 in Case R 1974/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the trade mark application to the Office for registration to proceed;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 September 1997 in Case C-141/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v. Bernhard Langhorst (Value added tax - Interpretation of Articles 21 (1) (c) and 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Document serving as an invoice - Credit note issued by the buyer and not contested by the seller as regards the amount of tax shown)

text:
C 331 /8                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
Article 3 (1 ) (6) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                      States relating to the protection of employees in the event
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                       of the insolvency of their employer, for the payment of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                  that employee's claims in the event of the employer's
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                     insolvency is the institution of the State in which, in
consumer is to be interpreted as meaning that the                          accordance with Article 2 (1 ) of the directive, either it is
expression 'established within the Community ' used in it                  decided to open the proceedings for the collective
refers only to the seller.                                                 satisfaction of creditors ' claims or it has been established
                                                                           that the employer's undertaking or business has been
                                                                           closed down.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
( 2 ) OJ L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                           (') OJ C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p. 23 .
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 17 September 1997
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
in Case C- 11 7/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret): Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende,                      in Case C-141/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v.
acting on behalf of Carina Mosbæk v. Lønmodtagernes
                               Garantifond (*)                                                     Bernhard Langhorst (')
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of                   (Value added tax — Interpretation of Articles 21 (1 ) (c)
                                                                           and 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC —
the employer's insolvency — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Employee residing and employed in a State other than that                  Document serving as an invoice — Credit note issued by
in which the employer is established — Guarantee                           the buyer and not contested by the seller as regards the
                                   institution)                                                     amount of tax shown)
                                ( 97/C 331 / 13                                                          ( 97/C 331/14 )
                    (Language of the case: Danish)                                           (Language of the case: German)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                 In Case C-141 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern                         of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
Regional Court) ( Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in                    Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between                          pending before that court between Finanzamt Osnabrück-
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende, acting on behalf of                       Land and Bernhard Langhorst — on the interpretation
Carina Mosbæk and Lønmodtagernes Garantifond — on                          of Articles 21 ( 1 ) (c ) and 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/               Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                    to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
employees in the event of the insolvency of their                          uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of:
employer (2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L.                    Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L.
Sevón, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet                            Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.                     Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has                     Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in which it has                     Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
ruled:                                                                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                           1997, in which it has ruled:
Where the employer is established in a Member State
other than that in • which the employee resides and was                    1 . Article 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Chamber Directive 77/
employed, the guarantee institution responsible, under                           388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October                           laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                              — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331 /9
     of assessment, authorizes Member States to regard a               Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     credit note issued by the recipient of the goods or               judgment on 25 September 1997, in which it has ruled:
     services as a 'document serving as an invoice', where it
     includes the information prescribed for invoices by
     that directive, it is drawn up with the agreement of the          1 . The rule laid down in Council Regulation (EEC)
     taxable person who supplies the goods or services, and                   No 222H7 of 13 December 1976 on Community
     the latter is able to contest the amount of value added                  transit and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 223177
     tax mentioned.                                                           of 22 December 1976 on provisions for the
                                                                              implementation of the Community transit procedure
                                                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure to the
2 . A taxable person who has not contested the mention,                       effect that, save as otherwise provided, proof of the
     in a credit note serving as an invoice, of an amount of                  Community status of goods may be provided only by
     value added tax greater than that owed by reason of                      means of transit documents T2 or T2 L is consistent
     taxable transactions may be regarded as the person                       with Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty.
     who has mentioned that amount, and is consequently
     liable to pay the amount shown, within the meaning
     of Article 21 (1 ) (c) of the Sixth Directive.                    2 . Article 37 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 222177 does
                                                                              not allow proof of the Community status of goods to
                                                                              be provided by means of the findings of the competent
(') OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .                                                 authorities of a Member State made when inspections
(2) OJL 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                          are carried out under the Community transit
                                                                             procedure.
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ C269, 14 . 9 . 1996 . .
                                                                       (2 ) OJL 38 , 9.2 . 1977, p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 3 ) OJL 38 , 9.2 . 1977, p . 20 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fourth Chamber)
                       of 25 September 1997
in Case C-237/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
the Cour d'Appel, Mons ): criminal proceedings against                                            (First Chamber)
                Eddy Amelynck and Others ( l )
                                                                                of 16 September 1997
(Free movement of goods — Community transit — Proof
              of the Community status of goods)                        in Case C-59/96 P: Casper Koelman v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, supported by Buma, an
                           ( 97/C 331 /15 )                            association governed by Dutch law, and the French
                                                                                Republic (J )
                                                                       (Appeal — Regulation No 17 — Rejection of a complaint
                 (Language of the case: French)                                              — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (:97/C 331 / 16
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-237/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Cour d'Appel ( Court of                                  published in the European Court Reports)
Appeal ), Mons (Belgium ), for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Eddy Amelynck and Others and Transports Amelynck                       In Case C-59/96 P, Casper Koelman (represented by:
SPRL, party liable at civil law — on the interpretation                R. V. H. Jonker) — appeal against the judgment of the
and validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 222/77                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (2 )                          ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ) in Case T-575/
and Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 233/77 of                          93 Koelman v. Commission [ 1996] ECR II- 1 , seeking to
22 December 1976 on provisions for the implementation                  have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
of the Community transit procedure and for certain                     proceedings being the Commission of the European
simplifications of that procedure (3 ) — the Court ( Fourth            Communities (Agent: B. J. Drijber ), supported by Buma,
Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the                  an association governed by Dutch law, established at
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.                     Amstelveen (Netherlands), represented by C. van Rij and
Kapteyn, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate General; L.                      E. A. P. Engels, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for