title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 January 1998 in Case T-67/94: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - State aid - Market in bet-taking - Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty - Definition of aid - Tax measures - Obligation to refund)

text:
C 94/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 4 February 1998                                                of 27 January 1998
in Case T-246/93: Günther Bühring v. Council of the               in Case T-67/94: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of
European Union and Commission of the European                                     the European Communities (1)
                       Communities (1)
                                                                  (Action for annulment Ð State aid Ð Market in bet-
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk            taking Ð Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty Ð
Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Conversion               Definition of aid Ð Tax measures Ð Obligation to
undertaking Ð Forced sale of holding Ð Damage Ð                                               refund)
              Causal link Ð Limitation period)
                                                                                (98/C 94/48)
                         (98/C 94/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  In Case T-67/94: Ladbroke Racing Ltd, established in
In Case T-246/93: Günther Bühring, residing at Elsfleth           London, represented by Jeremy Lever QC, Christopher
(Germany), represented by Hagen Lichtenberg, Bergius-             Vajda, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Stephen Kon,
straûe 11, Bremen (Germany) v. Council of the European            Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and             Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich,
Georg M. Berrisch) and Commission of the European                 against Commission of the European Communities
Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and             (Agents: Michel Nolin and Richard Lyal), supported by
Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application pursuant to Article 178          French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean-
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty          Marc Belorgey) Ð application principally for annulment
for compensation for the losses sustained by the applicant        of Commission Decision 93/625/EEC of 22 September
as a result of the application of Council Regulation (EEC)        1993 concerning aid granted by the French authorities to
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for             the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) and to the racecourse
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of          undertakings (OJ L 300, 7.12.1993, p. 15) Ð the Court of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                   First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                    composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. P.
supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/              BrieÈt, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the              Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court (First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President,         a judgment on 27 January 1998, in which it:
V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 4 February 1998
in which it:
                                                                  1. annuls Commission Decision 93/625/EEC of
                                                                       22 September 1993 concerning aid granted by the
                                                                       French authorities to the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                       and to the racecourse undertakings in so far as it
                                                                       found that various advantages granted to the PMU,
                                                                       through (a) the amendment in 1985 and 1986 of the
                                                                       allocation of the levies, (b) cash-flow benefits granted
                                                                       to it by the authorisation to defer payment of certain
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              levies on betting, (c) access to unclaimed winnings,
                                                                       and (d) exemption from the one-month delay rule for
                                                                       the deduction of value added tax, after 1 January
(1) OJ C 166, 17.6.1993.                                               1989, do not constitute State aid for the purposes of
                                                                       Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, and also in so far as it
                                                                       decided that the obligation on the French State to
                                                                       require repayment of the aid deriving from the PMU's
                                                                       exemption from the housing levy applies not as from
                                                                       1989, but as from 11 January 1991;
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/19
2. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          3. orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
3. orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 90, 26.3.1994.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 4 February 1998
                                                                   in Case T-94/95: Jean-Pierre Landuyt v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   (Action for annulment Ð Compensation payable to milk
                     of 4 February 1998                            producers Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð Offer of
                                                                   compensation Ð Acts of national authorities Ð Control
in Case T-93/95: Bernard Laga v. Commission of the                   Ð Competence Ð Action for damages Ð Admissibility)
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/50)
(Action for annulment Ð Compensation payable to milk
producers Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 Ð Offer of
compensation Ð Acts of national authorities Ð Control                             (Language of the case: French)
  Ð Competence Ð Action for damages Ð Admissibility)
                        (98/C 94/49)
                                                                   In Case T-94/95: Jean-Pierre Landuyt, residing at Grisolles
                                                                   (France), represented by Jean-FrancËois Le Petit, of the
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard
                                                                   Rozet), supported by French Republic (Agents: initially
                                                                   Catherine de Salins and FreÂdeÂric Pascal, subsequently
                                                                   Kareen Rispail-Bellanger and Mr Pascal) Ð application,
In Case T-93/95: Bernard Laga, residing at Grisolles               first, for annulment of the decision of the Office National
(France), represented by Jean-FrancËois Le Petit, of the           Interprofessionnel du Lait et des Produits Laitiers of
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            20 January 1995 finding the applicant ineligible for
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against                  compensation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard             93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation
Rozet), supported by French Republic (Agents: initially            to certain producers of milk and milk products
Catherine de Salins and FreÂdeÂric Pascal, subsequently            temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ
Kareen Rispail-Bellanger and Mr Pascal) Ð application,             L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6) and, second, for an order requiring
first, for annulment of the decision of the Office National        the Commission to make good the loss suffered as a result
Interprofessionnel du Lait et des Produits Laitiers of             of that decision Ð the Court of First Instance (First
20 January 1995 finding the applicant ineligible for               Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
compensation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/               R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
to certain producers of milk and milk products                     4 February 1998, in which it:
temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ
L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6) and, second, for an order requiring
the Commission to make good the loss suffered as a result
of that decision Ð the Court of First Instance (First              1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          2. orders the applicant to pay the costs;
4 February 1998, in which it:
                                                                   3. orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs;


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2005 in Case T-399/03 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Occupational illness — Request for recognition of aggravation — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Legal classification of a note of the Commission — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/36

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 April 2005
   in Case T-399/03 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Occupational illness - Request for recognition of aggravation - Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Legal classification of a note of the Commission - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 182/67)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-399/03: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in St-Leonards-on-Sea, represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 10 March 2003 implementing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 given in Case T-212/01, and for annulment of the medical report compiled during that procedure — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004


title: Case T-193/06: Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Télévision Française 1 v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/48

         Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Télévision Française 1 v Commission
   (Case T-193/06)
   (2006/C 224/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Télévision Française 1 (Boulogne, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

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

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the annulment of the decision given by the Commission on 22 March 2006 concerning aid schemes for the film and audiovisual industry;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged with the Commission two complaints by which it applied for a finding that the changes to the aid schemes in the field of support for the film and audiovisual industry in France constituted illegal State aid, in so far as they conferred, in breach of Article 88(3) EC, and in any event, State aid incompatible with the common market.
   By Decision C(2006)832 Final of 22 March 2006 (State Aid NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 — France, aid schemes for the cinema and audiovisual industry), the Commission declared the support schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production put in place in France to be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC. That is the decision contested in this action.
   In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   By its first plea in law, the applicant maintains that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned in respect of the nature of parafiscal charges, the nature of the investment obligations imposed on televised broadcasters and the compatibility with the common market of the other measures of State support challenged by the applicant.
   By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission also made manifest errors of assessment of the concept of State resources by deciding that the system of compulsory orders does not involve the transfer of State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   The third plea in law relied upon by the applicant alleges breach by the Commission of Article 87(3)(d) EC in that the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment of the meaning of ‘aid to promote culture’.


title: Case T-665/16: Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/61

         Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)
   (Case T-665/16)
   (2016/C 402/72)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal adviser, K. Gajek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the symbols ‘€’ and ‘$’ — Application for registration No 13 839 998

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 2086/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2004 in Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Extent of the obligation of examination — Conversion into a national trade-mark application — Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 September 2004
   in Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Extent of the obligation of examination - Conversion into a national trade-mark application - Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 284/33)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp., established in Santa Monica, California (United States), represented by F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and D. Botis), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Moser Grupo Media SL, established in Santa Eulalia del Rio (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2002 (Case R 437/2001-3) declaring inadmissible the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division relating to opposition proceedings between Moser Grupo Media SL and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp., — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-380/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 5 August 1999 in the case of Bertelsmann AG against Finanzamt Wiedenbrück

text:
C 6/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                1b) If the reply to Question 1a) is in the negative: In the
hof by order of that court of 5 August 1999 in the case of                 situation described in Question 1a), is the same classifi-
     Bertelsmann AG against Finanzamt Wiedenbrück                          cation in the collective agreement an indication of the
                                                                           same work or work of equal value within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and of
                         (Case C-380/99)                                   Directive 75/117/EEC, with the result that it is for the
                                                                           employer to prove that the activities in question are
                          (2000/C 6/22)                                    different?
                                                                       1c) Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     account in collective agreements in order to justify a
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       difference in pay?
(Federal Finance Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in          1d) If the reply to Question 1a) or 1b) is in the affirmative:
the case of Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück on the                  Does this also apply if the classification in the professional
following question:                                                        category under the collective agreement is based on a job
                                                                           description in very general terms?
Is Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             2a) Is there a definition of ‘worker’ underlying Article 119
relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as           (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC
meaning that the taxable amount in respect of the supply of a              which is uniform at least in so far as the worker’s obligation
bonus payable in kind, which is sent to the recipient in                   under the contract of employment depends not only on
exchange for recruiting a new client, includes not only the                generally defined standards, but also on the individual
purchase price of the bonus but also the delivery costs?                   capability of the worker himself?
                                                                       2b) Are Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Article
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   1 of Directive 5/117/EEC to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a difference in pay may be objectively justified by
                                                                           circumstances which can be established only ex post facto,
                                                                           particularly the result of the work of a specific employee?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June
1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der
     österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft
                         (Case C-381/99)                               Appeal brought on 8 October 1999 by The Procter &
                                                                       Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       8 July 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                          (2000/C 6/23)                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-163/98
                                                                       between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                           and designs)
Wien (Regional Court of Appeal, Vienna) (Austria) of 15 June
1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a                                 (Case C-383/99 P)
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v
Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft on
the following questions:                                                                        (2000/C 6/24)
1a) With regard to the question whether work is ‘equal work’           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
    or ‘the same job’ within the meaning of Article 119 (now           the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    Article 141) of the EC Treaty or is ‘the same work’ or             European Communities in Case T-163/98 between The Procter
    ‘work to which equal value is attributed’ within the               & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the
    meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC (1), is it sufficient, in          Internal Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before
    connection with the stipulation in an individual contract          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    of employment of supplements to the pay determined by              8 October 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company, rep-
    a collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two               resented by Thierry van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    workers being compared are classified in the same pro-             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
    fessional category under the collective agreement?                 Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.


title: Case F-102/09: Action brought on 17 December 2009 — Bennett and Others v OHIM

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/50

         Action brought on 17 December 2009 — Bennett and Others v OHIM
   (Case F-102/09)
   2010/C 37/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Kelly-Marie Bennett (Mutxamel, Spain) and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decisions to terminate the applicants’ contracts pursuant to a termination clause linked to passing an open competition with a specialisation in intellectual property. Secondly, compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicants.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions to terminate the applicants’ contracts, dated 12 March 2009;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 9 October 2009, notified on the same day, rejecting the complaints brought by the applicants on 12 June 2009;

               —

               consequently, order the defendant (i) by way of damages and interest, to pay the applicants the remuneration in respect of the period from the date on which the termination of their contracts took effect until the date of their reinstatement on account of the annulment of the decisions taken and (ii) to reconstitute the career of each applicant unlawfully halted by the decisions to terminate their contracts; in the event that the applicants’ reinstatement results in significant practical difficulties or is excessive with regard to the situation of a third party, order the defendant to pay monetary compensation equitable to the unlawful termination of the applicants’ contracts. Such compensation must take into account, inter alia, not only the loss of remuneration with regard to the past but also the applicant’s genuine opportunity to remain in the service of OHIM until their retirement age under a contract for an (fully) indeterminate period and to develop in their career;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decisions to terminate the applicants’ contracts in so far as the duration of the notice period was not fixed taking into account all the years of service of each of the applicants within OHIM;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 85 000 in respect of each of the applicants;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.


title: Case C-494/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of Heintz van Landewyck SARL against Staatssecretaris van Financiën)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of Heintz van Landewyck SARL against Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
   (Case C-494/04)
   (2005/C 45/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 26 November 2004 received at the Court Registry on1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Heintz van Landewyck SARL against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the Excise Duty Directive (1) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to enact a statutory provision under which they must reimburse or offset amounts by way of excise duty due or paid at the time excise labels are requested in a case in which the requesting party (the holder of an authorisation to operate a tax warehouse) has not used, nor will be able to use, labels which disappeared before they were affixed to products subject to excise duty, and third parties cannot have made and will not be able to make lawful use of the labels even though it cannot be ruled out that they have used, or will use, the labels by affixing them to tobacco products which have been put on the market in an irregular manner?

               2

                           (a)

                           Must the Sixth Directive, (2) and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the Netherlands Government notified the Commission at a date later than that laid down in Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive, as amended by the Ninth Directive, that it wished to maintain the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products means that if an individual invokes the failure to observe the time-limit, after the date when notification was in fact made, this special procedure for charging tax must be disapplied also after the making of the notification?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the special procedure for charging tax on tobacco products laid down in Article 28 of the Wet op de Omzetbelasting must be disapplied on the grounds that it is incompatible with the conditions laid down by the abovementioned provisions of the directive?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question 2(b) is in the negative, must the Sixth Directive, and in particular Article 27(1) and (5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that failure to reimburse turnover tax in circumstances such as those referred to in Question 1 is contrary thereto?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

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


title: Case F-5/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — E v Commission (Officials — Lawfulness of internal procedures — Allegedly wrongful conduct of officials in the context of disciplinary proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the occupational nature of a disease — Compensation for damage — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Confirmatory act)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — E v Commission
   (Case F-5/06) (1)

   (Officials - Lawfulness of internal procedures - Allegedly wrongful conduct of officials in the context of disciplinary proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the occupational nature of a disease - Compensation for damage - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Confirmatory act)
   (2006/C 212/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: E (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint concerning the checking of the lawfulness of disciplinary proceedings and of a procedure for recognition of the applicant's occupational disease, and a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-382/10: Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/42

         Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch v Commission
   (Case T-382/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Villeroy & Boch (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Philippe and K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the contested decision null and void in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, in consequence, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) (Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fixtures and fittings) concerning a cartel on the Belgian, German, French, Italian, Netherlands and Austrian markets in bathroom fixtures and fittings for the coordination of sales prices and the exchange of sensitive business information.
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its action:

               —

               breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA as a result of classifying the infringement as a single, complex and continuous infringement, since the defendant thus failed to comply with its duty in law to assess the individual conduct of each of the undertakings to which the decision is addressed;

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, since the defendant failed to provide a sufficiently precise definition of the relevant markets in the contested decision;

               —

               lack of sufficient evidence concerning the applicant’s participation in infringements in France;

               —

               breach of the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence, laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter and Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, (1) since the defendant imposed a fine jointly and severally on the applicant and its parent company;

               —

               mis-calculation of the fine, since the defendant included some of the applicant’s turnover which had no connection with the objections raised when the fine was calculated;

               —

               breach of Article 41 of the Charter, since the excessive length of the procedure was not taken into account when the fine was calculated;

               —

               breach of the principle of the proportionality of penalties and errors of assessment when the fine was calculated, since the basic amount was set at 15 % and the absolute amount of the fine exceeded the limit of 10 % of the applicant’s turnover.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case F-2/16: Action brought on 11 January 2016 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/51

         Action brought on 11 January 2016 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-2/16)
   (2016/C 106/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H.-E. von Harpe, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EEAS’s decision not to reimburse the applicant his removal expenses from Zambia to Brussels.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 12 March 2015;

               —

               annul, if necessary, also the implicit rejection of the complaint;

               —

               order the European External Action Service to pay the costs, including those incurred in the pre-litigation procedure.


               15.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 33/5

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo Tingrett by decision of that court of 30 January 2006 in the case of Ladbrokes Ltd. v Staten v/Kultur- og kirkedepartementet and Staten v/Landsbruks- og matdepartementet

   (Case E-3/06)
   (2007/C 33/03)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 30 January 2006 of Oslo Tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 August 2006, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ladbrokes Ltd. v Staten v/ Kultur- og kirkedepartementet and Staten v/ Landsbruks- og matdepartementet on the following questions:

               1.

               Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that certain forms of gambling can only be provided by a State-owned gambling company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes?

               2.

               Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licenses to provide horserace betting can only be granted to non-profit organizations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding?

               3.

               Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licenses to certain forms of gambling can only be granted to non-profit organizations and associations with a humanitarian or social purpose?

               4.

               Under EEA law, is it legitimate for national legislation to emphasise that the profit from gambling should go to humanitarian and social purposes (including sports and culture), and not to be a source of private profit?

               5.

               Does EEA Article 36 preclude a national statutory provision which forbids the providing and marketing of gambling which is not permitted in Norway, but which is legally operated in another EEA State?


title: Case C-432/08 P: Appeal brought on 1 October 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment delivered on 9 July 2008 in Joined Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/17

         Appeal brought on 1 October 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment delivered on 9 July 2008 in Joined Cases T-296/05 and T-408/05 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case C-432/08 P)
   (2008/C 313/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

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

               —

               1. In any event:

                           (1.a)

                           annul the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

                           (1.b)

                           declare that both the pending actions are fully admissible;

                     and in addition:

               —

                  2/A., primarily, grant the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance, that is to say: (2/A.1) annul the contested decisions; (2/A.2) annul, in so far as necessary, both decisions dismissing the claims in question; (2/A.3) order the defendant, by way of reimbursement of the amount of the medical costs incurred by the applicant and referred to in the claims in question seeking 100 % reimbursement, or by way of compensation for the damage resulting from the unlawful conduct of the defendant, to pay to the applicant sums equal to EUR 2 572,32 (two thousand five hundred and seventy two point three two) and EUR 381,04 (three hundred and eight one point zero four), or greater or lesser sums than those stated above as the Court deems fair and equitable; (2/A.4) order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest on the sums stated above in point 2/A.3 of this appeal, in the amount to be capitalised on the start and end date in accordance with what is stated in the case-files; (2/A.5) order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs relating to this appeal and also to the pending cases;
               or

               —

                  2/B., in the alternative, refer both the cases in question back to the Court of First Instance for it to give another ruling on the same.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and statements of the applicant in its pleadings, following also from the material inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First Instance (in particular, paragraphs 30, 44, 46 and 49 of the judgment under appeal).
   Misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of a challengeable act, also for confusion, unreasonableness and illogicalness, infringement of Article 231 of the EC Treaty and failure to appreciate the case-law concerning the effects of annulment by the Community courts of a decision issued by a Community institution, infringement of the principle of the authority of res judicata, infringement of the principle of the separation of powers (in particular, paragraphs 43, 44 and 49 of the judgment under appeal).
   Complete absence of preliminary investigations and failure to rule on a fundamental issue of the dispute (in particular, paragraph 12 and paragraphs 43 to 51 inclusive of the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-453/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 17 October 2008 — Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Khatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 17 October 2008 — Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Khatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas v Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis
   (Case C-453/08)
   (2008/C 327/30)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Panagiotis I. Karanikolas, Valsamis Daravanis, Georgios Kouvoukliotis, Panagiotis Dolou, Dimitrios Z. Parisis, Konstantinos Emmanouil, Ioannis Anasoglou, Pantelis A. Beis, Dimitrios Khatziandreou, Ioannis A. Zaragkoulias, Triantafillos K. Mavrogiannis, Sotirios T. Liotakis, Vasilios Karampasis, Dimitrios Melissidis, Ioannis V. Kleovoulos, Dimitrios I. Patsakos, Theodoros Fournarakis, Dimitrios K. Dimitrakopoulos and Sinetairismos Paraktion Alieon Kavalas

      Defendants: Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon and Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Dramas — Kavalas — Xanthis

      Interveners: Alieftikos Agrotikos Sinetairismos gri-gri nomou Kavalas ‘Makedonia’ and Panellinia Enosi Plioktiton Mesis Aliias (P.E.P.M.A.)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it permitted, for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation No 1626/94, for a Member State to adopt supplementary measures consisting in the complete prohibition of the use of fishing gear whose use is in principle allowed under the provisions of that regulation?

               2.

               Is it permitted, for the purposes of the provisions of that regulation, to use in the marine area of a Member State with a Mediterranean coastline fishing gear which is not included among the gear specified as being in principle prohibited in Article 2(3) and Article 3(1) and (1a) of the regulation and whose use was prohibited before the regulation entered into force by a national provision of the Member State?


title: Case T-83/17: Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/37

         Action brought on 8 February 2017 — Heineken Romania v EUIPO — Lénárd (Csíki Sör)
   (Case T-83/17)
   (2017/C 121/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Heineken Romania SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: András Lénárd (Sincraieni, Romania)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Csíki Sör’ — Application for registration No 12 105 839

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2016 in Case R 1310/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of July 1st, 2015 in Opposition B 002 279 514;

               —

               upheld the opposition B 002 279 514;

               —

               reject the European Union trade mark application No 012 105 839‘Csíki Sör’ in its entirety.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-56/93: Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Preferential tariff system for supplies of natural gas to Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers)

text:
 No C 133 /6           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Michel
                        (Third Chamber )                              Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the Kingdom of the
                                                                      Netherlands ( Agents : Jaap de Zwaan and Ton Heukels ) —
                      of 15 February 1996                             application for annulment of the Commission's decision
 in Case C-53/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty , addressed on
 by the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai ): Inasti v. Hans                29 December 1992 to other Member States and other
                             Kemmler ( 1 )                            parties concerned, regarding a preferential tariff system
  (Freedom of establishment — Social security for                     applied in the Netherlands for supplies of natural gas to
    self-employed persons working in two Member States)               Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers ( OJ No C 344 , 1992 , p . 4 )
                                                                      — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
                            96/C 133/ 10
                                                                      Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                      Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevón ,
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                      Judges ; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-
                                                                      Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be        judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 , dismisses the application;
 In Case C-53/95 — reference by the Tribunal du Travail
 ( Labour Tribunal ), Tournai , for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Inasti                  2 , orders the applicant to pay the costs;
 ( Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
Indépendants — National Social Insurance Institution
                                                                      3,   orders the intervener to bear its own costs .
for Self-employed Persons ) and Hans Kemmler, on the
interpretation of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
— the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of J. P. Puissochet           (') OJ No C 88 , 30 . 3 . 1993 .
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment
on 15 February 19 96 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
Article 52 of the EC Treaty precludes a Member State from
requiring contributions to be made to the social security                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
scheme for self-employed persons by persons already                                            ( Fifth Chamber )
working as self-employed persons in another Member State
where they have their habitual residence and are affiliated to                             of 29 February 1996
a social security scheme, that obligation affording them no          in Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
additional social security cover.                                    v. Commission of the European Communities and Ireland
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities (')
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                     (Common organization of the market in beef and veal —
                                                                                Conditions for intervention)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/ 12 )
                                                                      (Languages of the cases: C-296/93 : French; C-307/93 :
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                English)
                        ( Fifth Chamber )
                     of 29 February 1996                              (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
in Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the                      published in the European Court Reports)
                   European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — Preferential tariffsystem for supplies ofnatural        In Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
            gas to Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers)               ( Agents : Philippe Pouzoulet, Catherine de Salins and
                          ( 961C 133/ 11 )                           Jean-Louis Falconi ) v . Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Gérard Rozet and Christopher
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Docksey ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland ( Agent: John D. Colahan, assisted by :
                                                                     Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister ) and Ireland ( Agent : Michael
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         A. Buckley, assisted by : James O'Reilly SC, and Richard
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Law Nesbitt, Barrister-at-Law ) v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities                ( Agents : Gérard Rozet,
In Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium ( Agent : Jan                   Christopher Docksey and Hans Gerald Crossland ),
Devadder, assisted by Claude A. Gonthier, Avocat ) v .               supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and


title: Case T-271/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission (Competition — Article 82 EC — Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany — Margin squeeze — Charges approved by the national regulatory authority for telecommunications — Leeway of the dominant undertaking)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-271/03) (1)

   (Competition - Article 82 EC - Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany - Margin squeeze - Charges approved by the national regulatory authority for telecommunications - Leeway of the dominant undertaking)
   (2008/C 128/62)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially, K. Quack, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, and subsequently, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, K. Mojzesowicz and S. Rating, then K. Mojzesowicz and A. Whelan, and subsequently, K. Mojzesowicz, W. Mölls and O. Weber, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Arcor AG & Co. KG (Eschborn, Germany), (represented by: initially, M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and M. Rosenthal, then M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, and subsequently, M. Klusmann, lawyers); Versatel NRW GmbH, formerly Tropolys NRW GmbH, formerly CityKom Münster GmbH Telekommunikationsservice and TeleBeL Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation Bergisches Land mbH (Essen, Germany); EWE TEL GmbH (Oldenburg, Germany); HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, formerly KomTel Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Informationsdienste mbH (Flensburg, Germany); NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH (Cologne, Germany); Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH, formerly tesion Telekommunikation GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany); and Versatel West-Deutschland GmbH, formerly Versatel Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by N. Nolte, T. Wessely and J. Tiedemann, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C 1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 — Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 3 of that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders (1) Arcor AG & Co. KG and (2) Versatel NRW GmbH, EWE TEL GmbH, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH, Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH and Versatel West Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case C-422/02 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2002 by Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH against the judgment delivered on 12 September 2002 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-89/00 between Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/17
      —     by accepting the systematic refusal by the Tekhniko          1.   Does retail trading constitute a service within the meaning
            Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE) (Technical Chamber of                  of Article 2 of the Directive?
            Greece), registration with which is an essential
            precondition in order to pursue the profession of                 If the answer to this question should be affirmative:
            architect in Greece, to register Community nationals
            holding non-Greek qualifications which should be             2.   To what extent must the content of such services by a
            recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of                  retailer be specifically stated in order to guarantee the
            10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of dip-                    certainty of the subject-matter of trade-mark protection
            lomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  that is required in order to
            qualifications in architecture, including measures
            to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
            establishment and freedom to provide services (1),                (a)   fulfil the function of the trade mark pursuant to
                                                                                Article 2 of the Directive, namely distinguishing the
            the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-                    goods or services of one undertaking from those of
            gations under Articles 6(2), 10 and 12 of that                          other undertakings, and
            directive;
(b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           (b) define the scope of protection of such a trade mark
                                                                                in the event of a conflict?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          3.   To what extent is it necessary to define the scope of
                                                                              similarity (Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5(1)(b) of the
                                                                              Directive) between those services by a retailer and
The Commission alleges that the Hellenic Republic has failed
to transpose Directive 85/384 into national law correctly
inasmuch as the Greek legislation lays down: (i) a parallel                   (a)   the other services provided in connection with the
system for contesting diplomas, certificates and other evidence                     sale of goods, or
of formal qualifications beyond that provided for by the
directive (referral to the advisory committee for architecture);              (b) the goods sold by that particular retailer?
and (ii) an obligation on the other Member States beyond that
owed by them under Article 6(1) of the directive.
In addition, the Commission alleges that the defendant has
implemented the directive inappropriately by reason of incor-
rect administrative practice on the part of the Tekhniko
Epimelitirio Elladas (TEE). In its submission, the TEE either
does not examine in due time applications for entry on the
register or does not inform applicants, giving reasons, of the           Appeal brought on 21 November 2002 by Europe Chemi-
refusal to register them.                                                Con (Deutschland) GmbH against the judgment delivered
                                                                         on 12 September 2002 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
( 1) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.                                         Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in case T-89/00 ( 1) between Euro-
                                                                         pe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union, supported by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespat-
entgericht by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in                                         (Case C-422/02 P)
the appeal matter of PRAKTIKER Bau- und Heimwerker-
                            märkte AG
                                                                                (2003/C 19/31)
                         (Case C-418/02)
                          (2003/C 19/30)
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 September
                                                                         2002 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                 T-89/00 between Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH
(Federal Patents Court) of 15 October 2002, received at the              and the Council of the European Union, supported by the
Court Registry on 20 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling             Commission of the European Communities, was brought
in the appeal matter of PRAKTIKER Bau- und Heimwerker-                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
märkte AG on the following questions on the interpretation of            21 November 2002 by Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland)
the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988               GmbH, established in Nuremberg (Germany), represented by
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade           K. Adamantopoulos, J. J. Gutiérrez Gisbert and J. Branton,
marks (OJ L 40 1989, p. 1):                                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.1.2003
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, notwithstanding that the Appellant’s case is not based
                                                                         on an infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
                                                                         the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           in law in any event (and failed to give adequate reasoning)
      12 September 2002 in case T-89/00;                                 when concluding in paragraph 57 of the judgment that the
                                                                         difference in legal basis for the application of anti-dumping
                                                                         duties against LAECs from the U.S.A. and Thailand on the one
2.    make an order that the costs of and occasioned by these            hand, and Japan on the other, was sufficient reason to
      proceedings, and those before the Court of First Instance,         render the principle of equal treatment inapplicable in the
      be borne by the Council;                                           circumstances of the present case.
3.    annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 163, 10.06.2000, p. 32.
      (EC) No. 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating the
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 22, 27.01.2000, p. 1.
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain             (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
      large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (‘LAECs’) originat-             protection against dumped imports from countries not members
      ing in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) in so                of the European Community (OJ L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1).
      far as it does not state that the retroactive effect of this
      Regulation shall apply from 4 December 1997 onwards;
      or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of
      First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly
substituted its own understanding for what the Appellant had
claimed by stating in paragraph 48 of the judgment that the                                        (Case C-423/02)
Appellant had ‘essentially alleged an error in law with respect
to the application of the principle of equal treatment in the
Contested Regulation’. Rather, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                (2003/C 19/32)
should have held that the Appellant had essentially alleged an
error in law with respect to the application of the principle of
non discrimination, as laid down in Article 9(5) of the Basic
Anti-Dumping Regulation (‘BR’) ( 3), to the facts of the present
case. Had the Court of First Instance properly considered the
application of the principle of non discrimination laid down             An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
in Article 9(5) BR, rather than concentrating on the principle of        Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
equal treatment, it should have reached a different conclusion.          the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in law by concluding in paragraph 58 of the judgment
in relation to Article 9(5) BR that:
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(i)   Article 9(5) BR relates only to the initial imposition of          1)     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      anti-dumping duties;                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
                                                                                landfill of waste (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
(ii)  Article 9(5) BR does not necessarily apply to the mainten-                such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
      ance in force of anti-dumping duties, pursuant to                         of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Article 11(2) BR; and                                                     fully its obligations under Article 18 of that Directive;
(iii) Article 9(5) BR may be applied at the discretion of the            2)     order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Council and as such is a non-mandatory rule of law.                       Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-518/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Practice of permitting London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so — Concept of State aid — State resources — Economic advantage — Selective advantage — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/5

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd v The Parking Adjudicator
      (Case C-518/13) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Practice of permitting London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so - Concept of State aid - State resources - Economic advantage - Selective advantage - Effect on trade between Member States)
      (2015/C 073/06)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: The Queen, on the application of Eventech Ltd

         Defendant: The Parking Adjudicator

         Intervening parties: London Borough of Camden, Transport for London

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The practice of permitting, in order to establish a safe and efficient transport system, Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up and set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, does not appear, though it is for the referring court to determine, to be such as to involve a commitment of State resources or to confer on Black Cabs a selective economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                  2.

                  It is conceivable that the practice of permitting Black Cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up or set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, may be such as to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, which it is for the referring court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case C-335/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Failure to require more stringent treatment of nitrogen in all treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10000 population equivalent)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-335/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Failure to require more stringent treatment of nitrogen in all treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent)
   2009/C 282/04
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to require that all urban waste water collected from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent be subject to more efficient treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


No C 87/8            ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 4 . 95
 Article 1 of Regulation (EEC ) No 2241/87, not only to                     Removal from the register of Case C-146/94 ( )
 diligently to take all control measures necessary in order to                                    ( 95/C 87/16 )
ensure compliance with the rules in force but also to take
penal or administrative action against those responsible for
infringement of those rules. At no time have the French                By order of 8 February 1995 the President of the Fifth
authorities claimed that France has discharged its                     Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
obligations in the matter.                                             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       C-146/94: Commission of the European Communities v.
 (!) OJ No L 207, 29 . 7. 1987, p. 1 .                                 Hellenic Republic.
 (2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 1 .
 (3 ) OJ No L 367, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                             (!) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/94 ( )
                             ( 95/C 87/15 )
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-203/94 ( )
By order of 1 February 1995 the President of the Court of                                         ( 95/C 87/17)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/94: Commission of the                  By order of 3 February 1995 the President of the Court of
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-203/94: French Republic v.
(M OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6. 1994 .                                        Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Haarlem-Bollenstreek,           established    in    Heemstede,
                          (First Chamber)                             Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke
                                                                      Ijsselmeerpolders, established in Apeldoorn, Netherlands,
                      of 21 February 1995                             Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, established in
in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende                         Leeuwarden,        Netherlands,          Vereniging     Centrale
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and                  Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, established in Leeuwarden,
  Others v. Commission of the European Communities (*)                Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, established in
(Competition — Non-existent measure — Decisions of                    Rotterdam, Netherlands, Economisch Nationaal Verbond
associations of undertakings — Complex rules and                      van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, established in Utrecht,
regulations — Infringement — Effect on trade between                  Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken',
           Member States — Exemption — Fines)                         established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Gelderse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, established
                            ( 95/C 87/18 )                            in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging,
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         established in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging, established in The Hague,
In Case T-29/92 : Vereniging van Samenwerkende                        Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, established in
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid,                     Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers
established in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse                   Combinatie, established in Tilburg, Netherlands,
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Amsterdam,                       Nederlandse    Aannemers-          en  Patroonsbond    voor      de
Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor                        Bouwbedrijven, established in Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Utrecht,                      Noordhollandse           Aannemers          Vereniging       voor
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers                  Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Amsterdam,
en Buizenleggers, established in Soest, Netherlands,                  Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings
Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken,                   Regeling, established in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale
established in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging              Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe,


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-40/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Reintroduction, after the date of entry into force of the Directive, of a total abolition of the right to deduct VAT charged on diesel used as fuel for vehicles and machines on the purchase of which no VAT is deductible)

text:
28.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 212/3
C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that, by not               K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a declar-
adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations          ation that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                prohibition on the right to deduct value added tax on diesel
mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to                     used as fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no value
technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the                     added tax is deductible after having, on several occasions,
protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                    introduced a partial right to deduct the French Republic has
biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within             failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ                  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
1995 L 155, p. 41), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil           harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Third                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                 basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version
er, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplifi-
has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                         cation measures with regard to value added tax — scope of
                                                                           certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
1.    Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all    implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to     Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
      comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June                 Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
      1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive                and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
      90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
      exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual            2001, in which it:
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the Directive;
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                           1.    Declares that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
                                                                                prohibition on the right to deduct value added tax on diesel
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                         used as fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no value
                                                                                added tax is deductible, after having introduced a partial right
                                                                                to deduct, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                                of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
                                                                                of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the version
                                                                                resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplification
                                                                                measures with regard to value added tax — scope of certain
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                       exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them.
                           of 14 June 2001
in Case C-40/00: Commission of the European Communi-                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                     ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —
Reintroduction, after the date of entry into force of the
Directive, of a total abolition of the right to deduct VAT
charged on diesel used as fuel for vehicles and machines on
          the purchase of which no VAT is deductible)                      (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                           (2001/C 212/05)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-40/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:


title: Case F-143/06: Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Continolo v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/41

         Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Continolo v Commission
   (Case F-143/06)
   (2007/C 20/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Donato Continolo (Duino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and R. Albelice, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Tribunal is asked to:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 3 January 2006 concerning the award and calculation of the applicant's pension rights to the extent that it credits the period which the applicant spent on leave on personal grounds from 11 June 1981 to 1 March 1983 only 5 months, 6 days of pensionable service, instead of 8 months, 20 days;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2006 dismissing the applicant's complaint;

               —

               indicate to the Commission the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular, concerning the percentage acquired, currently fixed at 66.66666 %, which must be recalculated to take account of the months of January and February 1983;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former Commission official, has been retired since 1 January 2006. In his action, he contests the decision of the Commission concerning the award and calculation of his pension rights inasmuch as that decision discloses that the rights which he acquired for the period of his leave on personal grounds, in respect of which he had obtained a transfer into the Community system, have not been wholly credited.
   The applicant relies, first, on breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and, secondly, on a manifest error of assessment and of a breach of the duty to state reasons.


title: Case C-425/01: Action brought on 26 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
8.12.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348/21
Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission                     identification cannot be considered valid as it does not meet
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      the conditions concerning safety and publication required by
                              Spain                                     Community case-law for the full implementation of directives.
                         (Case C-419/01)                                (1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.
                         (2001/C 348/37)
                                                                        Action brought on 26 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                                            Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 Octo-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero, of its Legal Service, acting as                                  (Case C-425/01)
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of its Legal Service, Wagner                                      (2001/C 348/38)
Centre.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        26 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Horstpeter Kreppel and Miguel
—     Declare that, by having identified sensitive areas in respect     França, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      of only part of its territory, the Kingdom of Spain has           Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive          Centre, Kirchberg.
      91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-
      water treatment (1),
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      —      Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                               its oligations under Articles 4, 10, 11 and 12 of Council
                                                                               Directive 89/391/EEC (1),
                                                                        —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 5(1) of Directive 91/271/EEC provides that Member
States were to identify, by 31 December 1993 sensitive areas            The Portuguese Republic has still not adopted any legislation
according to the criteria laid down in Annex II (freshwater             relating to the procedure for electing workers’ representatives
bodies and coastal waters which are found to be eutrophic or            in health and safety matters at work. The fact that there are no
which in the near future may become eutrophic, nitrate                  workers’ representatives in health and safety matters at the
content of surface freshwater intended for the abstraction of           work place — for lack of legislation governing election
drinking water and water requiring further treatment to fulfil          procedures — makes it impossible for workers to exercise their
other Community directives). The present action concerns                rights in that regard. Contrary to the Portuguese authorities’
only the failure to identify sensitive areas with respect to            contention, if it were not necessary to adopt the legislation
waters for which the Autonomous Communities are respon-                 proper to the implementation of the electoral procedure to
sible: waters relating to intra-community river basins and              enable workers to elect their representatives, the express
coastal waters.                                                         mention made by the Portuguese legislature in Article 23(2)(b)
                                                                        of Decree Law No 441/91 of the need to legislate for that
                                                                        electoral procedure would be entirely redundant.
So far, only the Autonomous Communities of Andalucı́a,
Galicia, Murcia and Cantabria have identified their sensitive           (1) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduc-
areas in respect of coastal waters, gazetted them and communi-              tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
cated them to the Commission. So far as concerns the river                  health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).
basin draining waters only from within the Autonomous
Community of Catalonia, the Commission takes the view that