title: Case T-414/03: Action brought on 11 December 2003 by the Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/32                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            21.2.2004
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Regione                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                             —     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C5/ME/jlsD(2003)
                                                                                358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-408/03)                                          recovery of the contribution paid by the European
                                                                                Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the ‘Messina
                           (2004/C 47/62)                                          Palermo Motorway major project’ partially cancelled by
                                                                                Commission         Decision        No       109206       (ERDF
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 93.05.03.001 — Arinco No 93.IT.16.009) of 5 Sep-
                                                                                tember 2002 and the Debit Note No 3240406591 of
                                                                                25 September 2002 and the other acts resulting from it;
                                                                                Order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Annul       Commission           Decision       BUDG/C5/ME/
      jlsD(2003)358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed
      rules for the recovery of the contribution paid by the                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
      European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the                      those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
      ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’ projects, Debit                Commission (1).
      Notes No 3240304871 of 14 August 2003 and
      No 3240303927 of 13 August 2003, and the other acts
      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European                (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
      Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.         Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Cofradía de
                                                                             Pescadores San Pedro de Bermeo, Vizcaya, and Others
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-415/03)
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-                                                   (2004/C 47/64)
                              munities
                          (Case T-414/03)                                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2004/C 47/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             the European Communities on 18 December 2003 against
                                                                             Council of the European Union by Cofradía de Pescadores San
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Pedro de Bermeo,Vizcaya, and Others established at Guipúzcoa
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   and Vizcaya, Spain, represented by the lawyers Emiliano
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by the Regione                      Garayar Gutiérrez, Gervasio Martínez-Villaseñor, Anna García
Siciliana, represented by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato.                   Casatillo and Miguel Troncoso Ferrer.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97

text:
C 135/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.5.2000
— in the affirmative, maintain the effects of the annulled                for a compulsory beef-labelling system’ within the pre-
    regulation in force until the Parliament and the Council              scribed period.
    adopt a new measure in accordance with Article 152 EC;
                                                                     (1) OJ 1999 L 334, p. 1.
                                                                     (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 of 21 April 1997 establishing
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals
                                                                         and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (OJ 1997
                                                                         L 117, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Lack of power on the part of the Council: Regulation               Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-400/97, C-
    No 2772/99 is based on Article 19 of Regulation (EC)                                  401/97 and C-402/97 (1)
    No 820/97(2), whereby, in accordance with the third
    indent of Article 202 EC, the Council reserved the right                                  (2000/C 135/18)
    to exercise implementing powers directly. In adopting
    Regulation No 2772/99, however, the Council altered the          By order of 16 February 2000 the President of the Court of
    temporal application of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    thus acted outside its implementing power, which contains        from the register of Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-
    neither the power to extend the application of the volun-        402/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
    tary labelling system beyond 31 December 1999 nor the            Superior de Justicia del Paı́s Vasco): Administración del Estado
    power to postpone the introduction of the compulsory             v Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa and Others.
    beef-labelling system.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
— Infringement of the prerogatives of the European Parlia-
    ment: By the contested regulation, the Council effectively
    altered the substance of Regulation (EC) No 820/97. By
    adopting it on the basis of Article 19 of Regulation (EC)
    No 820/97 rather than doing so in accordance with Article               Removal from the register of Case C-152/99 (1)
    152 EC, the Council excluded the participation of the
                                                                                (2000/C 135/19)
    European Parliament in the codecision and thus infringed
    the Parliament’s prerogatives.                                   By order of 21 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
— Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 829/97: The Council             from the register of Case C-152/99: Commission of the
    failed to comply with the obligations imposed by Article         European Communities v Ireland.
    19 of Regulation (EC) No 820/97 itself by not adopting
    the implementation measures consisting of ‘general rules         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1998.


title: Case F-87/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2011 — Dekker v Europol

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2011 — Dekker v Europol
   (Case F-87/09) (1)

   2011/C 252/128
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 80.


title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-410/97)

text:
C 55/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.98
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                 Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber              of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and H. Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                                       Luxembourg
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                                (Case C-410/97)
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                                                                                (98/C 55/30)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Ð declare that, by not charging value added tax on tolls            Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
     for the use of highway infrastructures, contrary to            the European Communities, represented by Marie
     Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/           Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
     EEC) of 17 May 1977 (1) the Kingdom of the                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
     the EC Treaty, and                                             Kirchberg.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Kingdom of Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
                                                                         the minimum safety and health requirements for
The Commission Ð like the Netherlands Government Ð                       improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
takes the view that the tolls charged in the Netherlands                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
constitute consideration for the supply of a service within              obligations under that Directive,
the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
However, the Netherlands Government wrongly considers
that the bodies governed by public law charged with the             Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
operation of facilities for which a toll is levied are acting            costs.
in that regard as public authorities within the meaning of
the exception in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive. In the
first place, a body governed by public law is taxable as a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
general rule and exemption is an exception to that rule.
The first subparagraph of Article 4(5) constitutes an
exception to Article 4(1) and (2). The fact that the second         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) constitute                  those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for
exceptions, in turn, to the first subparagraph does not             transposition expired on 31 December 1994.
detract from the exceptional nature of that first
subparagraph; on the contrary, it confirms that it provides         (1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
for a systematic exception. In the Netherlands                      (2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.
Government's argument, the rule and the exception
appear to be reserved. The fact that exemption constitutes
an exception is further confirmed by the fact that there
would have been no need for the exemptions under, in
particular, Articles 13 and 28 of the Sixth Directive if
bodies governed by public law had not been subject to the
VAT system. Any other interpretation would run counter              Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
to the general character of the Community VAT system.               of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
The charging of tolls is not inherent in the exercise of                                        Belgium
public authority, which includes the construction, making
available and maintenance of certain infrastructures such                                  (Case C-411/97)
as tunnels and bridges, but a separate activity forming
                                                                                (98/C 55/31)
part of the operation thereof. There is no reason why
there should be no question of acting as a public authority
in relation to supplies of gas etc. whilst such should be the
case as regards the operation of bridges and tunnels.               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                      Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                    Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Opinion 2/00: Request by the Commission of the European Communities for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty

text:
C 355/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
Request by the Commission of the European Communi-                      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the
ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 September
                             Treaty                                     2000 by DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH, represented
                                                                        by Ulrich Theune and Martin Luther, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                          (Opinion 2/00)
                                                                        Lucy Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
                         (2000/C 355/10)
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
By an application made by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Allan Rosas, Principal Legal                1.    set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
Adviser, Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Margarida                        Instance of 29 June 2000 in Case T-234/95 (1);
Afonso, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, received at the
Court Registry on 27 October 2000, the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has been asked to deliver an                   2.    annul Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.                          96/236/ECSC of 31 October 1995 (2);
The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court               3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
of Justice to answer the following two questions in the
affirmative:
1.    Do Articles 133 and 177(4) together with the relevant             Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions of Article 300 of the EC Treaty constitute the
      appropriate legal basis of the act of the European                —     Infringement of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty: With
      Community concluding the Cartagena Protocol on Bios-                    regard to the question whether economic unity exists
      afety?                                                                  between the City of Hamburg and the Hamburgische
                                                                              Landesbank Girozentrale (HLB), the Court of First
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, are the                     Instance wrongly attributed a broad power of assessment
      competences which the Member States retain in the field                 to the Commission. It is in reality a question of Com-
      of protection of the environment, which may justify their               munity law, falling entirely within the sphere of judicial
      participation in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,                   examination. The Court of First Instance was therefore
      residual in relation to the preponderant competence of                  not entitled to take the HLB as the reference investor in
      the Community to enter into international commitments                   the context of the comparison of investors. In assessing
      as regards the matters dealt with in that Protocol?                     the position with reference to the law on State Aids, the
                                                                              Court should have looked not at individual engagements
                                                                              of the City of Hamburg and HLB in isolation but at the
                                                                              respective engagement of the City and HLB as a whole.
                                                                              The disputed financial measures would then not have
                                                                              been capable of being classified as aid. Rather, they
                                                                              corresponded to market behaviour.
Appeal brought on 1 September 2000 by DSG Dradenauer                    —     Infringement of Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty: The Court
Stahlgesellschaft mbH against the judgment delivered on                       of First Instance misjudges the limited powers of action
29 June 2000 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-                            of the Commission under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty
sition, of the Court of First Instance of the European                        and attributes to it a power, unknown under that Treaty,
Communities in Case T-234/95 between DSG Dradenauer                           to require the Member States immediately to demand
Stahlgesellschaft mbH, supported by the Federal Republic                      repayment of aid prohibited under Article 4(c) of the
of Germany and the Commission of the European Com-                            Treaty. On a proper interpretation of Article 88 of the
munities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                            ECSC Treaty in conjunction with Article 6(4) of the fifth
                 Britain and Northern Ireland                                 Steel Aid Code, the Court of First Instance should
                                                                              have recognised that, under this Treaty, the form and
                        (Case C-323/00 P)                                     procedures for the abolition of unlawful aid are left to the
                                                                              Member States.
                         (2000/C 355/11)
                                                                        —     Infringement of general legal principles.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-234/95             (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
between DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH, supported                 (2) OJ 1996 L 78, p. 31.
by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of
the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom


title: Case C-395/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo by order of that court of  25 October 2005  in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio and Others

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Viterbo by order of that court of 25 October 2005 in criminal proceedings against Antonello D'Antonio and Others
   (Case C-395/05)
   (2006/C 10/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Viterbo (Italy) of 25 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proccedings against Antonello D'Antonio and Others on the following question:

               —

               whether Articles 4(1) and 4 bis of Law No 401/89, as amended, which at present allow only Italian public service concessionaires, and not foreign intermediaries (bookmakers), to engage in the business of betting are in breach of the principles of freedom of competition, freedom to provide services and the right of establishment, as provided for by Articles 31, 86, 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-81/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber, by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l'Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI)

text:
C 108/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of                 Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products                   by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in            of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the                                                 Abel
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum                                            (Case C-95/01)
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
                                                                                (2001/C 108/19)
(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              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).                                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-           Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
    isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992     19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
    L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).                                              ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
                                                                            Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
                                                                            following question:
                                                                            Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                            prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
                                                                            ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    another Member State?
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
                de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
                            (Case C-81/01)
                           (2001/C 108/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and                                           of Luxembourg
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
                                                                                (Case C-97/01)
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:
                                                                                (2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use              An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the                  brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the              the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not                      by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical                   address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers                The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?
                                                                            —    declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying                   practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
    down general rules for the description and presentation of wines             amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
    and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).                                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;
                                                                            —    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-152/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 76/464/EEC — Water pollution — Failure to transpose)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 3 May 2001
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
in Case C-190/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Paris): criminal proceedings against                   in Case C-152/98: Commission of the European Communi-
Edouard Balguerie and Others and Société Balguerie and                                   ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                               Others (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 — Conditions under which                      Directive 76/464/EEC — Water pollution — Failure to
certain goods are eligible on import for a favourable tariff                                               transpose)
arrangement by reason of their end-use — Regulations
(EEC) Nos 1517/91, 1431/92 and 1421/93 — Suspension
  of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties — Dates)                                                   (2001/C 200/20)
                           (2001/C 200/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-152/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: H. van Lier and J. Stuyck) v Kingdom of the
In Case C-190/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and C. Wissels) — appli-
EC from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) for a preliminary               cation for a declaration that, by failing to take adequate steps
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court               to transpose Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive
against Édouard Balguerie and Others and Société Balguerie                76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
and Others, liable in a civil capacity — on the interpretation             dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December                    of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), the Kingdom of
1987 determining the conditions under which certain goods                  the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
are eligible on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by              directive and Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249
reason of their end-use (OJ 1987 L 387 p. 81) — the Court                  EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                  F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it has ruled:                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in
                                                                           which it:
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible on       1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt for the Scheldt basin all the
import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their end-use,           measures necessary to transpose Article 7 of Council Directive
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1517/91 of 31 May 1991, Council                      76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
Regulation (EEC) No 1431/92 of 26 May 1992 and Council                           dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment
Regulation (EEC) No 1421/93 of 7 June 1993 temporarily                           of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on a                      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
number of agricultural products do not preclude dates imported in
original packings of a net content not exceeding 11 kg from being          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
eligible for suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff
duties.                                                                    3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

text:
19.2.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/11
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                    1. IV.(a) Must the Benelux Trade Mark Office which, under
                                                                            the Protocol of 2 December 1992 amending the uniform
                        (First Chamber)                                     Benelux law on trade marks (Trb. 1993, 12) (‘BMW’), is
                                                                            charged with assessment of applications for registration
                                                                            on the strict grounds as laid down in Article 3(1) in
                     of 18 November 1999
                                                                            conjunction with Article 2 of the First Council Directive
                                                                            89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
in Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of                      laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
                the European Communities (1)                                1989 L 40, p. 1), have regard not only to the sign as per
                                                                            the application for registration but to all relevant facts and
 (Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                    circumstances known to it including those of which it was
                                                                            informed by the applicant (for example that the applicant
                         (2000/C 47/18)                                     prior to the application already used the sign on a large
                                                                            scale as a trade mark of the relevant product or that it
                                                                            appears on inquiry that the sign intended for the goods
                   (Language of the case: French)                           and/or services mentioned in the application will not be
                                                                            capable of misleading the public)?
In Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and V. Akri-
tidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                 2. V. Does the reply to Question IV (a) apply also to the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt and C. Medernach,                   assessment of the Benelux Trade Marks Office concerning
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the order of the                    the question whether its objections to registration of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                  application have been lifted, as well as to its decision to
Chamber) of 21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97 Progoulis                    refuse registration in whole or in part, as provided for in
v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 1-A-521 and II-1569, seeking                     Article 6 bis (4) of the BMW?
to have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of              3. VI. Does the reply to Question IV (a) also apply to the
the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,                judicial assessment of the application referred to in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 Article 6 ter of the BMW?
18 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                         4. IX. (a) In light of the provisions of Article 6(5) B(2) of the
2. Mr Nicolaos Progoulis is ordered to pay the costs.                       Treaty of Paris, do the marks which under Article 3(1)(c)
                                                                            of the directive are not to be registered or, if registered,
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   may be declared invalid, also include marks consisting of
                                                                            signs or names which may serve in commerce to indicate
                                                                            the brand, quality, quantity, designation, value, place of
                                                                            origin or date of manufacture of the goods or provisions
                                                                            of the service or other characteristics of the goods or
                                                                            services even if that configuration is not the only or most
                                                                            usual indication? Does it make any difference in that
                                                                            connection whether there are many or only a few competi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
                                                                            tors who may have an interest in using such indications
’s-Gravenhage by order of that court of 3 June 1999 in
                                                                            (cf. judgment of the Benelux Court of 19 January 1981, NJ
the case of Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV, formerly
                                                                            1981, 294, in P. Ferrero & Co S.p.A v Alfred Ritter
known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV, v The Benelux
                                                                            Schokoladefabrik GmbH (Kinder)).
                      Trade Marks Office
                        (Case C-363/99)
                                                                            Is it also relevant that under Article 13C of the BMW the
                         (2000/C 47/19)                                     right to a trade mark expressed in one of the national or
                                                                            regional languages of the Benelux area automatically
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      extends to its translation in another of those languages?
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te
’s-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of
3 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 October
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koninklijke KPN            5. X. (a) In the assessment of the question whether a sign
Nederland NV, formerly known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland                   consisting of a (new) word made up of components, which
NV, v The Benelux Trade Marks Office on the following                       in themselves have no distinctive character in regard to the
questions:                                                                  goods or services for which the application is made,


title: Case C-92/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza
   (Case C-92/16)
   (2016/C 156/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 1 de Fuenlabrada

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

      Defendants: Henry-Rodolfo Rengifo Jiménez and Sheyla-Jeanneth Felix Caiza

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that a contract may not subsist without the unfair term if the remaining contract imposes unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier?

               2.

               If a contract imposing unreasonable hardship on the seller or supplier cannot continue in existence, would the national court be entitled to save the contract, in the interests of protecting the consumer, by applying a provision of supplementary law, or would it have to remedy the contract with a rule that is minimally tolerable for the seller or supplier?

               3.

               Does the fact that an early repayment clause is invalid because unfair allow the remaining contract to continue in existence within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13?

               4.

               May the consumer waive the protection regime provided for in Directive 93/13 before the court hearing the proceedings?

               5.

               Is a national procedural law, which makes the substantive rights and advantages enjoyed by a consumer subject to the condition that the latter submit to a specially expedited procedure but does not recognise such rights or advantages in other procedures, consistent with the principle of effectiveness laid down in Directive 93/13 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-178/01: Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 212/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.7.2001
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                  drive unoccupied Category D motor vehicles on ‘journeys
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,               necessitated by extraordinary circumstances’ without
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty              defining that criterion in any detail.
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.                                                               —     Paragraphs 20(4) and 40(5) in conjunction with Para-
                                                                               graph 20(4) of the Führerscheingesetz are contrary to the
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt                 directive, inasmuch as they do not require holders of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                          Category C1 driving licences to undergo periodic medical
                                                                               examinations.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 80, 25.3.1999, p. 20.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      icht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of
                              Austria                                                            Hüseyin Gözütok
                         (Case C-178/01)                                                          (Case C-187/01)
                         (2001/C 212/16)                                                          (2001/C 212/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April             European Communities by order of 30 March 2001 of the
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne),
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Marie             which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European           for a preliminary ruling under Article 35(1) EC in conjunction
Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             with Paragraph 1(2) EuGHG in the criminal proceedings
office of Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service           against Hüseyin Gözütok on the following question of
of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    interpretation concerning Article 54 of the Convention of
                                                                         19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the
                                                                         common borders (the Schengen Implementing Convention):
(1) declare that, by enacting Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the
      Führerscheingesetz (Law on driving licences), the Repub-
      lic of Austria has infringed the fifth indent of Article 3(1)
      of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on                 Is there a bar to prosecution in the Federal Republic of
      driving licences (1) and that, by enacting Paragraphs 20(4)        Germany under Article 54 of the Schengen Implementing
      and 40(5) in conjunction with Paragraph 20(4) of the               Convention if, under Netherlands law, a prosecution on the
      Führerscheingesetz, the Republic of Austria has infringed          same facts is barred in the Netherlands?
      point 4 of Annex III to that directive;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                In particular, is that also the case where a decision by the
                                                                         Public Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue proceedings after the
                                                                         fulfilment of conditions (Netherlands ‘transactie’), which under
                                                                         the law of other Contracting States requires judicial approval,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         bars prosecution before a Netherlands court?
—     Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the Führerscheingesetz goes fur-
      ther than Article 3 of the directive in relation to
      authorisation to drive Category C motor vehicles, inas-
      much as it permits an extensive class of persons also to


C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-218/04: Action brought on 26 May 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/9

         Action brought on 26 May 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-218/04)
   (2004/C 179/18)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 26 May 2004 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Hellenic Republic, represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, legal adviser, and Joannis Kalkias, of the special office for Community law of the State Legal Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and by Sofia Callas, substitute legal adviser of the Special Legal Service of the Community law section of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, with an address for service at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaide.
   The applicant claims that Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2002) 1070 fin of 30 March 2004 in which it sought reimbursement of the amount of EUR 710 341 paid by the Commission by way of co-financed expenditure for the setting up of the common vineyard register.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of the law.

               2.

               Misuse of powers.

               3.

               The Commission Decision claiming recovery of the amount granted does not accord with the principle of proportionality and the principle of cooperation by the Commission with the Member States.


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 October 1999 in Case C-273/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds): Angela Maria Sirdar v The Army Board, Secretary of State for Defence (Equal treatment for men and women — Refusal to employ a woman as a chef in the Royal Marines)

text:
C 20/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
2. Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer from excluding         ruling in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
    female workers on parenting leave entirely from the benefit of a      Angela Maria Sirdar and The Army Board, Secretary of State
    bonus paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas       for Defence — on the interpretation of the EC Treaty, in
    without taking account of the work done in the year in which the      particular Article 224 thereof (now Article 297 EC), and of
    bonus is paid or of the periods for the protection of mothers (in     Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    which they were prohibited from working) where that bonus is          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    awarded retroactively as pay for work performed in the course of      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    that year.                                                            training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L
                                                                          39, p. 40), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court,
    However, neither Article 119 of the Treaty nor Article 11(2) of       composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
    Directive 92/85 nor Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Council               de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
    Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agree-             Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
    ment on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    ETUC precludes a refusal to pay such a bonus to a woman on            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
    parenting leave where the award of that allowance is subject to       has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which it has
    the sole condition that the worker must be in active employment       ruled:
    when it is awarded.
                                                                          1. Decisions taken by Member States in regard to access to
                                                                              employment, vocational training and working conditions in the
3. Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85             armed forces for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness do
    and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Directive 96/34 do not preclude           not fall altogether outside the scope of Community law.
    an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus to a female
    worker who is on parenting leave, from taking periods of
    parenting leave into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.   2. The exclusion of women from service in special combat units such
                                                                              as the Royal Marines may be justified under Article 2(2) of
                                                                              Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    However, Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer, when            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
    granting a Christmas bonus, from taking periods for the                   women as regards access to employment, vocational training and
    protection of mothers (in which they were prohibited from                 promotion, and working conditions, by reason of the nature of
    working) into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.              the activities in question and the context in which they are carried
                                                                              out.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 October 1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in Case C-294/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 26 October 1999                                 the Finanzgericht Münster): Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG
                                                                                v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna(1)
in Case C-273/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds): Angela Maria                   (Freedom to provide services — Trade tax — Add-back to
Sirdar v The Army Board, Secretary of State for                           the taxable amount — Exemption inapplicable to the lessee
                             Defence (1)                                  where the proprietor of the goods leased is established in
                                                                           another Member State and is therefore not liable to the tax)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Refusal to employ
           a woman as a chef in the Royal Marines)                                                    (2000/C 20/11)
                          (2000/C 20/10)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Industrial                    In Case C-294/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom, for a preliminary              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht


title: Reference for a prelimininary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 28 November 1996, in the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited (Case C-394/96)

text:
8 . 2 . 97               I hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 40/ 13
Directive . Furthermore , there is no provision which would                          Directive ') (') to dismiss a female employee, at any
require the Minister concerned to inform the Commission                              time during her pregnancy, as a result of absence
( Article 2 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Directive ).                                          through illness arising from that pregnancy ?
Article 5 : Information to be supplied by the developer                        ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                Question 1 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
                                                                                pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
There is nothing in the Irish legislation that indicates that                        employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of
a decision-maker, before restricting a demand to Article                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
5 ( 2 ), mandatory information only, should consider the                             continued absence ?
relevance or reasonableness of asking for Annex III
optional information . It is the Commission 's contention
that, before so restricting the demand, the decision-maker                2 . ( a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of the
should apply the Article 5 ( 1 ) test as to the relevance and/                       Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a female
or reasonableness of asking for Annex III information and                            employee as a result of absence through illness
should have concluded that either the information was
                                                                                arising from pregnancy who does not qualify for
irrelevant (paragraph ( a ) of Article 5 ( 1 )), or the demand                       the right to absent herself from work on account
unreasonable ( paragraph ( b ) of Article 5 ( 1 )). As it stands ,                   of pregnancy or childbirth for the period specified
the Irish legislation leaves the decision-maker entirely free                        by national law because she has not been
to ignore the optional information as a matter of general                            employed for the period imposed by national law,
practice .                                                                           where dismissal takes place during that period ?
Article 7: Information to the other Member States                              ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                Question 2 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
The Irish legislation provides a mechanism whereby local                             pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
authorities ( the decision-makers ) should notify the Irish                          employer to dismiss employees , irrespective of
Minister for the Environment of an application likely to                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
                                                                                continued absence ?
have significant effects on the environment in another
Member State. It then allows the Minister to require the
local authority to furnish him with such information and                  H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
documents as he may specify. However, this latter power
can only be exercised where the other Member State has
sought to be consulted . Furthermore , there appears to be
no explicit duty on the Minister to furnish information to
the other Member State .
 (') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the
                                                                          case of Caisse de Pension des Employes Prives v. 1. Dieter
                                                                          Korde , 2 . Rainer Kordel and 3 . Frankfurter Alii an z
                                                                                Versicherungs AG
                                                                                ( Case C-397/96 )
Reference for a prelimininary ruling by the House of                                                     ( 97/C 40/27 )
 Lords, by order of that court of 28 November 1996, in
     the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited
                             ( Case C-394/96 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                ( 97/C 40/26 )                            European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier ( Trier Regional Court ) of 29 November 1996 , which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 12 December 1996 ,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse de Pension
 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                   des Employes Prives v. 1 . Dieter Kordel , 2 . Rainer Kordel
 of 28 November 1996 , which was received at the Court                    and 3 . Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG on the
 Registry on 9 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                  following question :
 the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited, on
 the following questions :
                                                                           How is Article 93 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (')
                                                                           to be interpreted ? Does recognition by the Member States
  1 . a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of Council        extend      also to the definition        of the content of the
           Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  subrogated claim in another Member State ( in this case ,
           implementation of the principle of equal treatment              the second sentence of Article 232 of the Luxembourg
           for men and women as regards access to                          Code des Assurances Sociales in conjunction with the
           employment, vocational training and promotion,                  relevant Grand Ducal Regulation, under which the claim
           and working conditions ('the Equal Treatment                    to which the pension fund is subrogated is to amount to


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 6 November 1997 in Case C-201/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne (LTM) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS) (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain chemical products - Multivitamin products and products containing amino acids - Tariff classification)

text:
C 7/2                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10. 1. 98
1. Article 37 of the EC Treaty does not preclude                     classified under heading 30 04 of the combined
     domestic provisions relating to the existence and               nomenclature, as established in the annex to Council
     operation of a national monopoly on the retail of               Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
     alcoholic beverages such as those mentioned in the              tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
     order for reference.                                            Customs Tariff, and consequently do not come within the
                                                                     scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of
2. Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude domestic             25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the
     provisions allowing only traders holding a production           production refund on certain sugar products used in the
     licence or a wholesale licence to import alcoholic              chemical industry.
     beverages on conditions such as those laid down by
     Swedish legislation.                                            (1) OJ C 233, 10. 8. 1996.
(1) OJ C 208, 12. 8. 1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 November 1997
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     in Case C-251/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              the Bundesgerichtshof): Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf
                     of 6 November 1997                                                     Dassler Sport (1)
in Case C-201/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            (Directive 89/104/EEC Ð Approximation of laws relating
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Laboratoires de                to the trade marks Ð Likelihood of confusion which
TheÂrapeutique Moderne (LTM) v. Fonds d'Intervention et                          includes the likelihood of association')
       de ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)                                       (98/C 7/04)
(Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
chemical products Ð Multivitamin products and products                              (Language of the case: German)
        containing amino acids Ð Tariff classification)
                          (98/C 7/03)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case C-251/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Sabel BV and Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler
In Case C-201/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           Sport on the interpretation of Article 4 (1) (b) of first
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif de Paris            Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
(Administrative Court, Paris), for a preliminary ruling in           approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
the proceedings pending before that court between                    trade marks (OJ L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 1) Ð the Court,
Laboratoires de TheÂrapeutique Moderne (LTM) and Fonds               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre             Gulmann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,
(FIRS) Ð on the interpretation of Council Regulation                 Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
(EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down                        Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
general rules for the production refund on certain sugar             J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
products used in the chemical industry (OJ L 94, 9. 4.               F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
1986, p. 9), as amended by Article 9 of Commission                   Administrator, for the Registrar Ð has given a judgment
Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 (OJ L 152,               on 11 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
18. 6. 1988, p. 23), and of Chapters 21 and 30 of the
combined nomenclature, as established by Council                     The criterion of likelihood of confusion which includes
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the                   the likelihood of association with the earlier mark'
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common                contained in Article 4 (1) (b) of First Council Directive
Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1) Ð the Court              89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                         laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L.                 interpreted as meaning that the mere association which
Murray (Rapporteur), Judges: M. B. Elmer, Advocate-                  the public might make between two trade marks as a
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                result of their analogous semantic content is not in itself a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in               sufficient ground for concluding that there is a likelihood
which it has ruled:                                                  of confusion within the meaning of that provision.
Products consisting of ingredients identical to those                (1) OJ C 248, 23. 9. 1995.
contained in Alvityl 50 DrageÂes' and Strongenol 20
Ampoules' and in the same proportions cannot be


title: Case C-205/03 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2003 by Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) against the judgment delivered on 4 March 2003 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-319/99 between Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) and Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/19
Appeal brought on 14 May 2003 by Federación Española                      The ground of appeal relied upon by the appellant is divided
de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) against the                   into two parts:
judgment delivered on 4 March 2003 by the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-319/99 between
Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Cien-
tífica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) and Commission                   —     Error of law inasmuch as it did not consider the activity
                 of the European Communities                                    of purchasing to be an economic activity which may be
                                                                                dissociated from the subsequent supply and that it must
                                                                                therefore be subject to competition rules under the Treaty.
                        (Case C-205/03 P)                                       According to the Court of First Instance, the activity of
                                                                                purchasing health products or services may not be disso-
                                                                                ciated from the subsequent use to which the organisations
                         (2003/C 184/34)                                        managing the SNS put such products or services. The
                                                                                appellant takes the view, on the other hand, that the
                                                                                activity of purchasing is economic by nature and alto-
                                                                                gether dissociable and that the reasoning of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance does not take account of the case-law of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 March 2003 by
                                                                                Court of Justice, which has lately settled in which cases or
the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                                circumstances competition rules apply in a sector as new
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-319/99
                                                                                as the health sector. The recent case-law of the Court of
between Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación
                                                                                Justice has not changed existing doctrine; it has merely
Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) and Commission
                                                                                had the chance to extend the scope not analysed hitherto
of the European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                                in which new public bodies in the health sector must be
Justice of the European Communities on 14 May 2003 by
                                                                                deemed to be ‘undertakings’.
Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria
(FENIN, formerly Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instru-
mentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental), represented by
Ramón García-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domínguez Pérez.
                                                                          —     Error of law inasmuch as it failed to consider that, in the
                                                                                event that the activity of purchasing is not an activity
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     which may be dissociated form the subsequent supply, the
                                                                                activity of purchasing is economic in that the subsequent
                                                                                activity (provision of health services) is such an activity
1.    declare the appeal admissible;                                            and is therefore subject to competition rules. The Court
                                                                                of First Instance considers that the subsequent supply is
                                                                                not an economic activity since it is governed by the
2.    set aside the judgment delivered on 4 March 2003 by the                   principle of solidarity both when obtaining funding,
      First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                      through social contributions and other State contribu-
      First Instance of the European Communities in Case                        tions, and when providing universal services free of
      T-319/99 between Federación Nacional de Empresas de                       charge to its members. The appellant argues, in the
      Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental                      alternative, that should the Court of Justice not accept
      (FENIN) and Commission of the European Communities                        the first part of the ground of appeal, that in that case
      (not yet published);                                                      the fact that the subsequent supply is an economic
                                                                                activity makes the activity of purchasing an economic
                                                                                activity, too. By failing to acknowledge as much, the
3.    order the Commission of the European Communities to                       Court of First Instance has infringed Community law.
      pay the entire costs of the proceedings before the Court
      of Justice and those incurred at first instance.
                                                                          The appellant regrets the absence in the grounds of the
                                                                          judgment of the Court of First Instance of any case-law
                                                                          relating to activities in the same economic sector, more so
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           when it has laid down for the first time a principle which the
                                                                          case-law has not so far dealt with (the activity of purchasing as
                                                                          such is not an economic activity, so that the nature of the
The appellant relies on a single ground of appeal alleging                purchase must be determined according to the use to which
erroneous interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the            are put the goods or services thus purchased). Moreover,
definition of ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Community               according to the appellant, the interpretation by the Court of
provisions on competition, in particular Article 82 EC and                First Instance casts doubt on the interpretation in various
Article 86 EC. According to the Court of First Instance, the              Member States (Spain, United Kingdom and Germany) of
organisations which run the Spanish national health system                Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, confirming that public bodies
(SNS) are not acting as undertakings when they purchase                   (including health organisations and bodies) of whatever legal
medical goods or services from suppliers, so that the prohibi-            nature which operate in them are to be deemed ‘undertakings’
tions laid down in Articles 81 EC(1) and 82 EC do not apply               in relation to their suppliers, and are subject to Community
to them. The appellant therefore takes the view that the Court            competition legislation.
of First Instance erred in law with regard to the application of
Articles 82 EC and 86 EC.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 January 1995 in Case T-538/93: Patrick Houlihan and Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Partial removal from the register)

text:
8 . 4 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/11
Brasseur, against the Council of the European Union                    1 . the names of Patrick Nash and of the other milk
(Agents: A. Brautigam and M. Bishop) and the Commission                      producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
of the European Communities (Agents: D. Boofi, C.                            removed from the list of applicants in Case T-525/93,
Docksey and H. J. Rabe ) — application for compensation,                     except that of Patrick Griffin;
under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
of the EC Treaty, for the damage which the applicants
consider they have suffered as a result of the application of          2 . each party is to bear its own costs.
Council Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred        i 1 ) OJ No C 328 , 4 . 12 . 1993 .
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk            (2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 .
and milk products sector (2 ) — the President of the Court of
First Instance made an order on 13 January 1995 , the
operative part of which is as follows:
1 . the names of Humphrey Hennessy and of the other milk
      producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
      removed from the list of applicants in Case T-524/93,                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      except that of Terry Wall;
                                                                                of 13 January 1995
                                                                       in Case T-538/93 : Patrick Houlihan and Others v. Council
2. each party is to bear its own costs.                                of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (M
(!) OJ No C 319, 26 . 11 . 1993 .                                                     (Partial removal from the register)
(2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .                                                             ( 95/C 87/25 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       In Case T-538/93 : Patrick Houlihan, residing in Dungarvan
                                                                        (Ireland), and the other milk producers whose names appear
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             in the Annex to the order, represented by James O'Reilly SC,
                                                                       of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa Watson,
                        of 13 January 1995
                                                                       Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver Ryan-Purcell,
in Case T-525/93 : Patrick Nash and Others v. Council of               Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fyfe
the European Union and Commission of the European                      Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against the
                          Communities i 1 )                            Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and
                (Partial removal from the register)                    M. Bishop ) and the Commission of the European
                            ( 95/C 87/24                               Communities (Agents: D. Boofi, C. Docksey and H. J. Rabe )
                                                                       — application for compensation, under Article 178 and the
                                                                       second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for the
                  (Language of the case: English)                      damage which the applicants consider they have suffered as
                                                                       a result of the application of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
In Case T-525/93 : Patrick Nash residing in Newcastle West             application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
 ( Ireland ), and the other milk producers whose names appear           (EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector ( 2 ) —
in the Annex to the order, represented by James O'Reilly SC,           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa Watson,                             13 January 1995 , the operative part of which is as
Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver Ryan-Purcell,                    follows:
 Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fyfe
Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against the
 Council of the European Union (Agent: A. Brautigam) and                1 . the names of Patrick Houlihan and of the other milk
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D.                       producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
 BooS, C. Docksey and H. J. Rabe ) — application for                          removed from the list of applicants in Case T-538/93,
compensation, under Article 178 and the second paragraph                      except that of John Harris;
 of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for the damage which the
 applicants consider they have suffered as a result of the
 application of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of                  2. each party is to bear its own costs.
 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of
 the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )               (!) OJ No C 319, 26 . 11 . 1993 .
 No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector ( 2) — the              (2) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4. 1984, p. 13 .
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 13 January 1995, the operative part of which is as
follows:


title: Action brought on 28 January 1999 by Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-30/99)

text:
27.3.1999           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 28 January 1999 by Bocchi Food
                                                                   Trade International GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð declare that, by failing to examine the complaint made
    pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and                                   (Case T-30/99)
    to adopt a decision on the basis of that examination
    within two months after receiving from the applicant,                                 (1999/C 86/57)
    by letter of 15 September 1998, a formal request to
    that effect made in accordance with Article 175 of the
    EC Treaty, the Commission has infringed Article 175                          (Language of the case: German)
    of the EC Treaty;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs, including those           An action against the Commission of the European
    incurred by the applicant, even if the Court takes the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
    view that, following the institution of the proceedings,       Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
    the Commission has taken steps in the matter which             1999 by Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH, Bergisch
    render the action devoid of purpose.                           Gladbach (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,
                                                                   Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a private company incorporated under              The applicant claims that the Court should:
German law. Its object is the production and marketing of
heat and energy and the provision of all services
connected therewith. It operates within and outside                1. order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
Germany. A significant majority interest in the applicant              its loss suffered through the competent authorities'
company is held by the Swedish power supplier,                         reducing its provisional reference quantity by applying
Vattenfall.
By letter of 15 September 1998 the applicant requested                 (a) the adjustment coefficient, and
the Commission, with reference to previous written
communications, to examine, pursuant to Articles 92 and
93 of the EC Treaty, the acquisition of Saarbergwerke AG               (b) the reduction coefficient;
and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH by Ruhrkohle AG, with a
view to ascertaining whether, as a result of and in
connection with that amalgamation, circumstances                   2. order the Commission, in so far as the applicant's
relating to aid had arisen which were compulsorily                     provisional reference quantity has been wrongly
notifiable. Although the applicant had expressly warned                reduced by applying the adjustment coefficient, to
the Commission of its intention to bring an action, the                compensate for that reduction by granting the
two-month period within which the Commission was                       applicant    additional    licences   in    the   future
required to act elapsed without any decision being issued              (compensation in kind);
which would have averted the claim of failure by the
Commission to act.
                                                                   3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, once the Commission
became aware of the planned amalgamation in February
1998, it was under a duty not only to approve the
acquisition of Saarbergwerke in the light of Article 66 of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the ECSC Treaty but also, and in parallel, to carry out an
examination to determine whether aid existed within the
meaning of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. However,
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
the Commission failed to carry out that examination.
                                                                   Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel
                                                                   GmbH v. Commission.