title: Case T-194/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos against European Parliament

text:
7.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/17
European Communities on 21 July 2000 by the Regione                     Action brought on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edlinger
Siciliana, represented by Francesca Quadri, lawyer, with an               against the Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case T-191/00)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2000/C 285/31)
—      annul the decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 22 December 1999;                                                    (Language of the case: German)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 July 2000 by Werner F. Edling-
                                                                        er, of Vienna, represented by Dr Friedrich Fritsch, Rechtsan-
                                                                        walt, Vienna.
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is directed against the Commission’s
decision of 22 December 1999 on the State aid scheme                    —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
implemented by Italy for the production, processing and                       ties has unlawfully omitted to take any steps, in response
marketing of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, in so               to his letters of 6 April and 22 May 2000 requesting the
far as it declares the aid granted pursuant to Article 6 of                   same, with a view to having the illegal measures against
Sicilian Regional Law No 68 of 27 September 1995 in favour                    Austria lifted.
of undertakings operating in the agriculture and fisheries
sectors to be incompatible with the common market and
requires Italy to withdraw the aid in question.                         Pleas in law and main arguments
That Law reproduces, in essence, the scheme set up by Regional          The applicant is an Austrian citizen. He states that, following
Law No 32 of 23 May 1991 on intervention in the agricultural            his arrival at Brussels airport on 9 March 2000, a taxi driver
sector. Article 48 of Regional Law No 32/91 provided for the            refused to drive him into the city centre. That refusal was
grant, during the three-year period from 1991 to 1993, of               attributable to the measures which the Portuguese Presidency
assistance with regard to the interest payable to credit insti-         had communicated to the Austrian Government in a statement
tutions and undertakings on operating loans granted for a               dated 31 January 2000 made on behalf of 14 Member States.
term not exceeding one year to traders established and carrying         The applicant maintains that those measures are contrary to
on business in Sicily at least 70 % of whose turnover was               Community law. He claims that the Commission, as the
accounted for by the sale of fruit and vegetables, including            guardian of the Treaties, was under an obligation to adopt
citrus fruits, outside the territory of the Region. Upon being          decisions in order to have those measures lifted. It unlawfully
notified of that measure, the Commission raised no objection            failed to do so.
to it.
In support of its claims, the applicant Region asserts, as its
principal plea, the existence in the present case of a misuse of
powers, infringement of Article 88(1) of the Treaty and
infringement of Article 253 of the Treaty by reason of the
absence of a proper statement of reasons, as well as violation          Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                      Campos against European Parliament
and of legal certainty. It points out in that regard that Article
6 of the 1995 Law is substantially the same as Article 48 of
the 1991 Law. According to the applicant, once a general aid                                     (Case T-194/00)
scheme has been approved, the Commission should not
undertake an examination of the individual elements of such                                      (2000/C 285/32)
aid. Consequently, in setting out the reasons for which
Article 6 of Law No 68/95 was to be regarded as a new aid
scheme, the Commission totally failed to consider the actual
scope of the provision, arriving at assessments which differed                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
from and contradicted its previous decision approving the aid.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                        the Court of First Instance on 26 July 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                        Campos, residing in Lisbon, represented by Carlos Botelho
                                                                        Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.10.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision contained in document No 109172                  —      annul the Commission’s decision of 29 July 1999
      of 17 February 2000, notified to him by the President of                   imposing on him the penalty provided for in
      the European Parliament, rejecting his complaint against                   Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of officials, namely
      the rejection of his request for definitive termination of                 removal from post with a one-third reduction in his
      service;                                                                   retirement pension entitlement;
—     Order the defendant to pay the applicant total compen-              —      annul the Commission’s decision refusing to re-open the
      sation of PTE 50 000 000 (PTE 25 000 000 for impair-                       disciplinary procedure;
      ment of his health and PTE 25 000 000 for damage to
      his good name and professional reputation);                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Commission official, was assigned to the
                                                                          European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO). The Com-
The applicant’s action is directed against the decision contained         mission alleges that he committed serious administrative
in document No 109172 of 17 February 2000, notified to                    irregularities and that he is guilty of serious misconduct in
him by the President of the European Parliament, rejecting his            respect of budgetary and financial management. Following a
complaint against the rejection of his request for definitive             disciplinary procedure, the Commission adopted the contested
termination of service.                                                   decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of removal
                                                                          from post with a one-third reduction in his retirement pension
                                                                          entitlement.
The applicant claims that the contested measure:
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
—     first, infringes the principle of sound administration by
                                                                          following pleas:
      which the Community institutions are bound;
                                                                          —      infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
—     second, infringes the principle of non-discrimination;                     the appointing authority did not observe the time-limit
                                                                                laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX
—     third, contains an inconsistent statement of the reasons                   to the Staff Regulations of Officials, two members of the
      on which it is based, contrary to the requirements of                      appointing authority failed to show the objectivity and
      Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of the European                        impartiality required and the applicant was unable to put
      Communities.                                                               forward at the appropriate time the grounds of his
                                                                                defence;
                                                                          —      a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                                mission was not legally entitled to level a charge against
                                                                                the applicant whilst at the same time taking the view that
                                                                                the former director of ECHO, who was the applicant’s
                                                                                direct hierarchical superior, had not failed in any way to
                                                                                fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations;
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi against
       the Commission of the European Communities                         —      violation of the obligation to apply the principle of
                                                                                proportionality, inasmuch as the appointing authority
                         (Case T-197/00)                                         failed to take into consideration the exonerating evidence
                                                                                submitted by the applicant.
                         (2000/C 285/33)
                                                                          In addition, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
                                                                          refusing to re-open the disciplinary procedure against him. He
                                                                          maintains that the decision of the College of Commissioners
                    (Language of the case: French)                        finding that the former director of ECHO had not failed to
                                                                          fulfil his obligations under the Staff Regulations constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 material new fact justifying his request for the matter to be
                                                                          resubmitted to the Disciplinary Board.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Hubert Onidi,
residing at Roquefort-les-Pins (France), represented by Jean-
Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2002 in Case T-234/02 R: Christos Michael v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Officials — Appointment decisions — Admissibility — Urgency — Lack of urgency)

text:
C 55/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             8.3.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             sels, represented by C. Tagaras, avocat, against the Commission
                           INSTANCE                                      of the European Communities (agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe
                                                                         and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, seeking the suspension of oper-
                     of 3 December 2002                                  ation of decisions appointing a Deputy Head of Unit of Unit
                                                                         DG FC A.01 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
                                                                         agences’ of that unit, the President of the Court of First Instance
in Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und                    made an order on 13 December 2002 in which it:
Veredlung v Commission of the European Communities
(Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Aid granted to
                                                                         (1) Dismissed the application for interim measures.
the new Länder — Rescue and restructuring aid — Duty to
          recover — Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                         (2) Reserved the costs.
                         (2003/C 55/73)
                  (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und
Veredlung, a company established in Neugersdorf, Germany,
represented by Professor U. Ehricke, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, supported by Freistaat Sachsen, represented by
M. Schütte, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-
V. Kreuschitz, V. di Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for a            Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the
stay of execution of the Commission’s Decision 2002/783/EC               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
of 12 March 2002 on State aid C 62/2001 (ex NN 8/2000)                                           Marks and Designs)
implemented by Germany for Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and
Erba Lautex GmbH in bankruptcy (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 48) and,
in the alternative, an application for staged reimbursement of                                    (Case T-356/02)
the aid in question — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 3 December 2002, in which
he:
                                                                                (2003/C 55/75)
1.   Dismissed the application for interim measures;
2.   Ordered that costs be reserved.                                     (Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was
                                                                                drafted: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE                                      An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                     of 13 December 2002                                 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen (Germany), represented by U. Sander
in Case T-234/02 R: Christos Michael v Commission of                     also a party before the Board of Appeal: KRAFFT, S.A,
                 the European Communities                                Andoain, Spain
(Interim measures — Officials — Appointment decisions —
        Admissibility — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 55/74)
                                                                         —      partially annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                                of 4 September 2002 inasmuch as the appeal of KRAFFT
                                                                                S.A. was upheld and inasmuch as the applicant’s appeal
                                                                                was not allowed
In Case T-234/02 R, Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-                —      order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of 21 April 1999 in Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thionville): Marc Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirtsmann (Case C-29/98) v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle (References for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 204/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     ‘Must Article 79 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/68 (1), as
                                                                           subsequently amended, where it provides that: … the con-
                         of 21 April 1999                                  ditions of employment of local staff, in particular:
in Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98 (references for a                      (a) the manner of their engagement and termination of their
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                         contract,
de Thionville): Marc Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirts-
mann (Case C-29/98) v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de                    (b) their leave, and
                            la Moselle (1)
                                                                           (c) their remuneration
   (References for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           shall be determined by each institution in accordance with
                          (1999/C 204/42)                                  current rules and practice in the place where they are to
                                                                           perform their duties, be construed as meaning that the
                                                                           European institution is permitted to dispense with national
                    (Language of the case: French)                         legislation, with the consequence that rules of Community
                                                                           origin are alone applicable, or does it, in contrast, impose
                                                                           compliance with national legislation, particulary if that
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     national legislation is mandatory and binding in nature?’
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98: two references to the                 (1) Council Regulation of 29.2.1968, OJ English Special Edition 1968
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de                  (I), p. 30.
Grande Instance de Thionville (France) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Marc
Charreire (Case C-28/98), Jean Hirtsmann (Case C-29/98)
and Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle on the
interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
mann. J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 21 April                Action brought on 14 April 1999 by the Commission of
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
The references for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de                                     (Case C-127/99)
Grande Instance de Thionville, by judgments of 21 March 1997, are
inadmissible.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/44)
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 April
                                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
dariale di Torino by order of 30 March 1999 in the case
    of Roberto Vitari v European Training Foundation
                                                                           — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Community law by failing to establish
                          (Case C-126/99)                                       one or more action programmes of the type and under the
                                                                                conditions provided for in Article 5 of Council Directive
                          (1999/C 204/43)                                       91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
                                                                                protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                                from agricultural sources; by failing to carry out the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          monitoring measures provided for in Article 6 of that
European Communities by order of 30 March 1999 from the                         directive; and by failing to draw up and submit a full report
Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court,                   as required by Article 10 of that directive,
Turin), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Vitari v
European Training Foundation on the following question:                    — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-225/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/106/EC — Maritime transport — Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-225/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/106/EC - Maritime transport - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 106/16)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-225/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Simonsson and M. Huttunen) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimares-Purokoski) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 amending Council Directive 95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 February 1997 in Case T-64/96: Filippo de Jorio v. Council of the European Union (Allowances of members of the Economic and Social Committee - Action for annulment - Action for declaration of failure to act - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
No C 131 / 16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.
                        of 5 February 1997                              Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
                                                                        an order on 6 February 1997, in which it:
in Case T-49/96: H. v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (')
(Officials — Action for damages — Objection of                          1 . dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                           inadmissibility)
                            ( 97/C 131 /39 )                            2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case T-49/96 : H, a former official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing at Brussels,
represented initially by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —                                               of 20 February 1997
application for compensation for the material and non-                  in Case T-139/96: MD Foods Amba and Others v.
material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of B.                         Commission of the European Communities ( l )
Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briët and A. Potocki,                                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 February
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                                                 ( 97/C 131 /41 )
 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                          (Language of the case: Danish)
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                   In Case T-139/96 : MD Foods Amba, established in Viby
                                                                        ( Denmark ), and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation,
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by G. Lett,
                                                                        Advokat, and N. Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R.
                                                                        Assa, 1 Rue J. P. Brasseur, against Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities ( Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues
                                                                        and H. Støvlbæk ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                        Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1996 on the registration of geographical indications and
                         of 6 February 1997                             designations of origin under the procedure laid down in
                                                                        Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 ( OJ
 in Case T-64/96: Filippo de Jorio v. Council of the                    No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 19 96, p. 1 ) in so far as concerns the
                         European Union ( 1 )                            registration of feta as a protected designation of origin —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
 (Allowances of members of the Economic and Social                       R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
 Committee — Action for annulment — Action for
                                                                        Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 February
    declaration of failure to act — Manifest inadmissibility)            1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                             ( 97/C 131 /40
                                                                         1 . Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-139/96 MD Foods
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                             Amba and Dansk Mejeriers Fællesorganisation v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, in order
                                                                             to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
 In Case T-64/96 : Filippo de Jorio, member of the                           application for annulment.
 Economic and Social Committee of the European
 Communities, represented by Lucio Filippo Longo, of the
 Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  2.   The costs are reserved.
 the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
 Hardt, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:
 Maria Cristina Giorgi and Therese Blanchet) —                           (') OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
 applications under Articles 173 and 175 of the EC Treaty
 relating to allowances of members of the Economic and
  Social Committee — the Court of First Instance (Third


title: Case C-112/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Angela Irmgard Diedrich and Others v Société Air France SA

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Angela Irmgard Diedrich and Others v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-112/17)
   (2017/C 213/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Angela Irmgard Diedrich, Thorsten Diedrich, Angel Wendy Mara Diedrich

      Defendant: Société Air France SA
   The case was removed from the register of the Court by order of the Court of 6 April 2017.


title: Case C-99/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (Telecommunication services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 30(2) — Portability of telephone numbers — Power of the national regulatory authorities — Direct charge to the subscriber — Disincentive — Taking costs into consideration)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-99/09) (1)

   (Telecommunication services - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 30(2) - Portability of telephone numbers - Power of the national regulatory authorities - Direct charge to the subscriber - Disincentive - Taking costs into consideration)
   2010/C 234/17
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Najwyższy — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Portability of telephone numbers — Obligation on the national regulatory authority, when performing the obligation to ensure that the charge to be paid by consumers for use of the porting facility does not act as a disincentive, to take into account the costs incurred by mobile telephone operators in providing that facility

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 24 July 1996, in the case of Imperial Chemical Industries plc against Colmer (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (Case C-264/96)

text:
No C 269/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
    solely on fulfilment of the conditions applying with                  administrative provisions of the Member States relating
    regard to German nationals and not on fulfilment of the               to construction projects ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
    further conditions applying to aliens which are laid                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
    down in the first sentence of paragraph 1 ( 3 ) of the
    Bundeskindergeldgesetz ('BKGG') in the version thereof            2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
    published in the Official Notice of 31 January 1994
    ( BGB1 . I, p. 168 )?                                             The time limit for transposition expired on 27 June
                                                                      1991 .
    Or, to phrase that question in more general terms :
                                                                      (>) OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 12 .
    Is a Member State prohibited from refusing a Turkish
    national who comes within the personal scope of
    Article 2 of Decision No 3/80 family benefits provided
    for under its law on the ground that that person does
    not possess an Aufenthaltsberecbtigung or an                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
    Aufenthaltserlaubnis ?                                            order of that court of 24 July 1996 , in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty's
2 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a                                       Inspector of Taxes )
    Member State a worker within the meaning of Article 2                                        ( Case C-264/96 )
    in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision No 3/80                                        ( 96/C 269/42 )
    during periods when, pursuant to the law of that State,
    compulsory contributions to the social security pension           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    scheme are deemed, in favour of that person , to have             European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
    been paid in respect of time spent in bringing up a               of 24 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    child ?
                                                                      29 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Imperial
                                                                      Chemical Industries pic against Colmer ( Her Majesty 's
3 . Is a Turkish national residing in the territory of a              Inspector of Taxes ), on the following questions :
    Member State who, in addition to following a course of
    studies, is employed there on the basis of a                      1.  In a situation where :
    corresponding Aufenthaltserlaubnis for up to 16 hours
    per week as an occasional worker to be regarded on that                   ( i ) a company ( company A ) is resident in a Member
    ground alone as a worker within the meaning of                                  State of the European Union;
    Article 2 in conjunction with Article 1 ( b ) of Decision
    No 3/80, or in any event because that person is insured                 ( ii ) company A is part of a consortium with another
    under a statutory accident insurance scheme against                             company ( company B ) also resident in that
    accidents at work ?                                                             Member State;
                                                                          ( iii ) companies A and B jointly own a holding company
                                                                                ( company C ) also resident in the Member State ;
                                                                          ( iv ) company C has a number of trading subsidiaries ,
                                                                                which are resident either in that Member State,
                                                                                other Member States of the European Union or
Action brought on 26 July 1996 by the Commission of the                             elsewhere in the world ; and
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                        ( Case C-263 /96                                    ( v ) company A is precluded from being entitled to
                          ( 96/C 269/41 )                                           claim against its corporation tax liability relief in
                                                                                respect of trading losses incurred by a trading
                                                                                subsidiary ( also resident in that Member State ) of
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                company C because the national legislation ,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          construed as a matter of national law, required
26 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                                      that the business of company C should consist
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                                 wholly or mainly in the holding of shares in
Adviser in the Commission, acting as Agent, with an address                         subsidiaries which are resident in that Member
for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la                           State .
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
European Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                      Does the requirement identified at ( v ) constitute a restriction
                                                                      on the freedom of establishment under Article 52 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty ? If so, is such treatment nevertheless justified under
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Community law ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and       2 . If the requirement under ( v ) is an unjustified restriction
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  under Community law, does Article 5 of the EC Treaty
    with Council Directive 89/ 106/EEC of 21 December                     require a national court to interpret the relevant
    1988 on the approximation of laws , regulations and                   national legislation, so far as is possible, so as to comply
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/21
     with Community law, even though neither company A,               measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
     company B or company C is itself seeking to exercise any         them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     rights under Community law, and even if an                       prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 30 June
     interpretation of national legislation which would               1994 without the Kingdom of Belgium having brought into
     comply with Community law would have the effect of               force the necessary measures .
     giving relief where the business of company C consisted
     mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries                  (') OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
     established outside the EC/EEA ? Or does Article 5 have
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 10 .
     the consequence only that the national legislation,              (>) OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25
     despite its interpretation, takes effect subject to the
     requirements of Community law in a case where these
     requirements are in point ?
                                                                      Action brought on 5 August 1996 by the French Republic
                                                                                against the European Parliament
Action brought on 31 July 1996 by the Commission of the                                        ( Case C-267/96 )
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/44 )
                          Case C-265 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/43 )
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   5 August 1 996 by the French Republic, represented by Marc
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            Perrin de Brichambaut, Director of Legal Affairs at the
31 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and Denys Wibaux, Secretary
Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as Agent,              for Foreign Affairs at the same ministry, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Embassy, 9 boulevard du Prince Henri .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,             — declare null and void the decision of the European
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 Parliament of 17 July 1 996 ,
      comply with :
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      ( a ) Commission Directive 93/64/EEC ( 1 ) of 5 July 1 993
            setting out the implementing measures concerning
            the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            establishments pursuant to Council Directive
            92/34/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of fruit plant            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
            propagating material and fruit plants intended for          Case C-345/95 of 6 November 1995 ( M.
            fruit production and/or by not notifying the
            Commission thereof;                                         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 7 .
      ( b ) Commission         Directive    93/79/EEC ( 3 )      of
            21 September 1993 setting out additional
            implementing provisions for lists of varieties of fruit
            plant propagating material and fruit plants, as kept
            by suppliers under Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-327/95 (')
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/64/EEC and                                       ( 96/C 269/45 )
      Article 3 of Directive 93/79/EEC and under the EC
      Treaty;                                                           By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                    register of Case C-327/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. Italian Republic .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the


title: Case C-66/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania)) — Kirin Amgen Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras (Patent law — Proprietary medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Articles 7, 19 and 19a(e) — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Period for lodging the application for such a certificate)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania)) — Kirin Amgen Inc. v Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras
      (Case C-66/09) (1)

      (Patent law - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Articles 7, 19 and 19a(e) - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Period for lodging the application for such a certificate)
      (2010/C 288/17)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Kirin Amgen Inc.

         Defendant: Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinis patentų biuras

         Intervener: Amgen Europe BV

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Interpretation of Articles 3(b), 7(1), 13(1), 19 and 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Company holding a European patent and a Community marketing authorisation for a medicinal product, which applied for a supplementary protection certificate for that product — Determination of the commencement date of the period laid down for lodging an application for a supplementary protection certificate — Date on which the marketing authorisation was granted or date on which the regulation in question entered into force for Lithuania through its accession to the European Union

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 7 and 19a(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be interpreted as not allowing the holder of a valid basic patent in respect of a product to apply to the competent Lithuanian authorities, within six months of the date upon which the Republic of Lithuania acceded to the European Union, for the grant of a supplementary protection certificate where an authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was obtained more than six months before accession under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, but the product did not obtain a marketing authorisation in Lithuania.

         (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-566/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — Jean-Charles Marchiani v European Parliament (Appeal — Member of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery — Implementing Measures of the Statute for Members of the Parliament — Respect for the rights of the defence — Principle of impartiality — Limitation — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 — Articles 78 to 81 — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 — Articles 81, 82 and 93 — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations — Reasonable time)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2016 — Jean-Charles Marchiani v European Parliament
   (Case C-566/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Member of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery - Implementing Measures of the Statute for Members of the Parliament - Respect for the rights of the defence - Principle of impartiality - Limitation - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 - Articles 78 to 81 - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 - Articles 81, 82 and 93 - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Reasonable time))
   (2016/C 305/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (represented by: C.S. Marchiani, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-53/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 101/45
Action brought on 11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG                                                       —      There is no basis for stating
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                            that the cafetière in question
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                               is a manifestation of the ‘usu-
                                                                                al shape of the product’.
                         (Case T-51/03)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                        (2003/C 101/79)
                  (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc against
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   the Commission of the European Communities
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                (Case T-53/03)
11 February 2003 by Pi-Design AG, Triengen (Switzerland),
represented by Jacob S Ørndrup, lawyer
                                                                                (2003/C 101/80)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                   (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 5 December 2002
      in Case No R452/2001-2 concerning EC trade mark
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      application No 000353854;
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 February 2003 by BPB plc,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Slough, United Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC
                                                                          and Mr Alexandre Nourry, Solicitor with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community trade mark          A three-dimensional trade mark              —     Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Decision insofar
sought:                       in the form of a ‘cafetière’ (push-               as it relates to BPB
                              down coffee pot) — application
                              No 353854                                   —     In the alternative, annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar
                                                                                as it relates to BPB or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                                the fine imposed on BPB to such amount as the Court
Goods or services:            Nice classification 21 (non-elec-
                              tric coffee makers)                               determines in accordance with law
                                                                          —     Subject to the annulment of Article 3 of the Decision or
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                                the reduction in the fine, order repayment of the principal
Board of Appeal:              examiner                                          sum paid by BPB together with such interest as the Court
                                                                                should determine in accordance with law
Decision of Board of          Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —     Order the Commission to pay BPB’s costs.
Pleas in law:                 —     The defendant’s decision is
                                    contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of
                                    Regulation No 40/94 (1):              Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     The trade mark has the
                                    necessary           distinctive       By its decision which forms the subject matter of the present
                                    character.                            action, the defendant found that the applicant and three
                                                                          other undertakings, namely Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche
                              —     The fact that the plaintiff’s         Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux, had
                                    cafetière design is copied            infringed Article 81 paragraph 1 EC by participating in a
                                    should not in itself lead to          complex and continuing agreement from 1992 until 1998
                                    the trade mark application’s          with the object of stabilising the principal EU markets in
                                    being refused on grounds of           plasterboard. The applicant denies that any agreement of the
                                    lack of distinctive character.        type alleged existed.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/46               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
In support of its application the applicant submits the                 Action brought on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA
following contentions:                                                      against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-54/03)
—     the defendant violated the rights of the defence and the
      principle of equality of arms. More specifically, the                                      (2003/C 101/81)
      applicant alleges that the defendant used information
      obtained from a third party as well as information
      contained in the replies of the other parties to the                                 (Language of the case: French)
      defendant, and that all of that information was not
      revealed to the applicant.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     the evidence advanced by the defendant does not substan-          European Communities on 14 February 2003 by Lafarge SA,
      tiate its claims and the defendant has failed to meet the         established in Paris, represented by Henry Lesguillons, Nathalie
      high standard of proof which the applicant considers is           Jalbert-Doury, Jean-Cyril Bermond, Antoine Winckler, François
      required in such proceedings.                                     Brunet and Igor Simic, lawyers.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     the defendant made manifest errors in its assessment of
      information, leading it to an incorrect decision and
      misuse of its powers.                                             —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities on 27 November 2002 in Case
                                                                              COMP/E-1/37.152 in so far as it concerns Lafarge SA and
                                                                              Lafarge Gypsum International SA;
—     the defendant violated Article 253, EC, in that it failed to
      provide sufficient or adequate reasons for its decision           —     in the alternative, annul or reduce the amount of the fine
                                                                              imposed on it by that decision;
                                                                        —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                              pay the costs.
The applicant further contends that in setting the fine the
defendant misapplied its powers under Article 15, paragraph 2,
of Regulation 17/62 and its own Guidelines on setting
fines, violated the principles of Community law and acted               Pleas in law and main arguments
unreasonably. In particular, the applicant contends that:
                                                                        The decision which is the subject of the present application
                                                                        concerns an agreement or arrangement between BPB, Gebruder
—     the basic amounts of the fine imposed for gravity and             Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke AG, Gyproc Benelux and the
      duration are disproportionate, arbitrary, and contrary to         applicant on the plasterboard market.
      the principles of proportionality and equal treatment
                                                                        In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
—     the 50 % uplift for aggravating circumstances is excessive        committed manifest errors of assessment inasmuch as the
      and disproportionate and offends the principle of equal           decision finds that Lafarge SA committed a single complex
      treatment                                                         continuous infringement, which the applicant denies.
—     the defendant failed to take account of any attenuating           The applicant also takes the view that:
      circumstances
                                                                        —     the defendant infringed its right to a fair hearing guaran-
                                                                              teed under Article 6 of the ECHR;
—     the defendant erred in its application of its Leniency            —     the defendant infringed essential procedural requirements
      Notice in violation of the principles of equal treatment                and rights of the defence. In that respect, the applicant
      and legitimate expectation                                              claims that the defendant used statements from the parties
                                                                              made during the procedure and that the proceedings were
                                                                              vitiated by constant infringements of the principle of
                                                                              equality of arms;
                                                                        —     the defendant infringed the principle of impartiality.


title: Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-188/96 P)

text:
No C 210/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
nevertheless they may not create obstacles to the exercise of               evidence, that he had had advance knowledge of the
the fundamental freedoms derived from the Treaty.                           model answers to the accounting and possibly the
                                                                            auditing questions, or of both the model answers and the
Lastly, in the Commission's view the present case does not                  questions themselves; the principles that no one may be
concern access to posts within the public administration but                obliged to incriminate himself cannot be relied on to
rather compliance with the principles of freedom of                         justify a total failure to cooperate in establishing the
movement and equal treatment in relation to conditions of                   truth,
employment and , consequently, it does not fall within the
exception of Article 48 ( 4 ).                                          — its assessment of the standard of proof required in order
                                                                            to establish a disciplinary offence : the contested
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 II, p . 475 .
                                                                            judgment in effect denies the disciplinary authorities the
                                                                            possibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a
                                                                            consistent body of relevant evidence obtained after a
                                                                            rigorously conducted disciplinary inquiry .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 22 .
Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95
between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                     European Communities                               Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
                        ( Case C-188/96 P                               court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Rosalinda Marchionne
                           ( 96/C 210/22 )
                                                                                ( Case C-189/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/23 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 199 6
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities                  European Communities by an order of the Pretura
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
Communities on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                     Tivoli Division, of 20 March 1996 , which was received at
European Communities, represented by A. M. Alves Vieira                 the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
and D. Waelbroeck , with an address for service in                      in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its                 on questions which are the same as those in Joined Cases
Legal Service, Wagner Centre .                                          C-58/95 and others ( M.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— set aside the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by
    the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
    T-40/95 ('), Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the
    European Communities, and
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
— make an appropriate ruling as to costs .                              court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Amerigo Alari
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-190/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/24 )
Breach of Community law in that the contested judgment
errs in :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— its interpretation of the scope of the obligation to state            European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    reasons ,
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
                                                                        Tivoli Division, of 3 April 1996 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
— its legal assessment of the factors regarded by the
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari on questions
    appointing authority as aggravating by considering that
                                                                        which are the same as those in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
    they did not justify the adoption of a disciplinary                 others ( M.
    measure more severe than that recommended by the
    Disciplinary Board : the Court of First Instance was
    wrong in not considering the applicant's attitude to be             (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
    an aggravating factor when, instead of producing a
    plausible defence, he merely denied , against all the


title: Case T-806/16: Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/53

         Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Agricola J.M. v EUIPO — Torres (CLOS DE LA TORRE)
   (Case T-806/16)
   (2017/C 014/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agricola J.M., SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: J. Clos Creus, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain).

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘CLOS DE LA TORRE’ — Application for registration No 13 029 533

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 2099/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 7 August 2015, which upheld the opposition against all the products in class 33: ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ by refusing the Community trade mark for all the contested goods;

               —

               alter earlier decisions by granting registration of the mark to the applicant for all the goods in class 33;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of this action.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the case-law arising from cases similar to the present case.


title: Case C-420/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
15.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/41
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                             the environment of genetically modified organisms and
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                         repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                          lic of Germany                                       by not informing the Commission thereof, the Republic
                                                                               of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                         (Case C-420/03)                                       directive;
                         (2003/C 275/64)                                 2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Pleas in law and main arguments
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into
      the environment of genetically modified organisms and
      repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or at any rate
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
      by not informing the Commission thereof, the Federal
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                                                         Netherlands
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs                                      (Case C-422/03)
      of the proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/66)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
The period for transposition expired on 17 October 2002.                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.                                                 Communities, represented by Michel Van Beek.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                               Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                               the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                               Austria
                                                                               into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                               and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or in any
                         (Case C-421/03)                                       event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                               Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                         (2003/C 275/65)                                       obligations under that directive;
                                                                         2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Prof. Dr Ulrich Wölker, with an              Pleas in law and main arguments
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The period for transposition of the Directive expired on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              17 October 2002.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive         (1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
      2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 4 July 2002 in Case C-173/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 1999/20/EC — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

text:
C 233/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.9.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                4 July 2002
                            13 June 2002
                                                                           in Case C-173/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-353/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                      ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Keeping
Newcastle Warm Limited v Commissioners of Customs
                             & Excise ( 1)                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 1999/20/EC — Failure to implement within the
                                                                                period prescribed)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
  amount — Consideration for goods or services — Subsidy)                                             (2002/C 233/15)
                          (2002/C 233/14)                                                       (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: English)                                            in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-173/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-353/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United
                                                                           N. Tsiros and N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that,
Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                           by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws,
before that court between Keeping Newcastle Warm Limited
                                                                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, on the interpretation
                                                                           with Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999
of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of              amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning additives in
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                           feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                           animal nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
                                                                           organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
                                                                           nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                           arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                           ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           (OJ 1999 L 80, p. 20), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the
                                                                           Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
                                                                           of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and C. W. A. Timmermans
Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of             (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2002, in which it:
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that
a sum such as that paid in the case in the main proceedings                1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed
constitutes part of the consideration for the supply of services and             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
forms part of the taxable amount in respect of that supply for the               comply with Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March
purposes of value added tax.                                                     1999 amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning additives
                                                                                in feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning certain products used
                                                                                in animal nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing
                                                                                the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                     nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
                                                                                arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-
                                                                                ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector,
                                                                                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 233/11
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 July 2002
                                                                            in Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi
                                                                                Snc v European Atomic Energy Community ( 1)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Appeal — Claim for compensation — Non-contractual
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    liability — Flooding — Blocked drain — Limitation period
                                                                                — No interruption of limitation period)
                           of 2 May 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 233/17)
in Case C-129/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bologna): Condominio Facchini Orsini v
                     Kone Ascensori SpA (1)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 233/16)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case C-136/01 P: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                            established in Ispra (Italy), (Lawyer: F. Venuti), appeal against
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                   in the European Court Reports)                           Communities (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2001 in Case
                                                                            T-124/99 Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v EAEC [2001]
                                                                            ECR II-53, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
                                                                            party to the proceedings being: European Atomic Energy
                                                                            Community, represented by the Commission of the European
In Case C-129/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                  Communities (Agents: H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) —
EC from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy) for a preliminary                  the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
Condominio Facchini Orsini and Kone Ascensori SpA — on                      V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
the interpretation of Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 July 2002, the
EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts                   operative part of which is as follows:
(OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            2.    Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc is ordered to pay the
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di               costs.
Bologna, by order of 20 February 2001, is inadmissible.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
( 1) OJ C 173, 16.6.2001.


title: Case C-468/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2012 — CCIAA di Cosenza v CIESSE SRL in liquidation

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2012 — CCIAA di Cosenza v CIESSE SRL in liquidation
   (Case C-468/12)
   2012/C 399/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Cosenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

      Defendant: CIESSE SRL in liquidation

      Question referred

   Do the Italian rules governing the methods for calculating the annual duty to be paid by all persons engaged in economic activity conflict with Article 5 of Directive 2008/7/EC (1) of 12 February 2008 in so far as they place a significantly greater burden on the operation of a business activity by a capital company (‘capital company’ being understood in the exhaustive sense provided for in [Directive 2008/7/EC]) than by a sole trader, inasmuch as under those rules (i) sole traders pay fixed annual duty of EUR 200 if registered in the ordinary section or EUR 88 if noted in the special section, (ii) società semplici agricole (agricultural partnerships) pay fixed annual duty of EUR 100 (in addition to EUR 20 for each local unit), (iii) local units and/or branches of undertakings having their seat abroad pay fixed duty of EUR 110, (iv) non-agricultural partnerships pay fixed duty of EUR 200, and (v) law firms pay fixed duty of EUR 200, whereas all other collective economic undertakings (companies, consortia, and so on) are required to pay ‘duty as a proportion of the preceding year’s turnover’ (thereby paying as much as EUR 40 000)?

      (1)  Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-298/00 P: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities and Impresa Edo Collorigh and Others (Appeal — State aid — Transport of goods by road — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Existing aid or new aid — Principles of reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Statement of reasons)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-298/00 P: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities and Impresa Edo Collorigh and Others (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Transport of goods by road - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Existing aid or new aid - Principles of reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expectations - Statement of reasons)
   (2004/C 118/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-298/00 P: Italian Republic (Agents: I. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello), with an address for service in Luxembourg — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 Alzetta and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-2319, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci), with an address for service in Luxembourg, Impresa Edo Collorigh and Others (Lawyer: V. Cinque), Mauro Alzetta and Others, Masotti Srl and Others, Impresa Anna Maria Baldo and Others, SUTES SpA and Others, Ditta Pietro Stagno and Others, Ditta Carlo Fabris & C. Snc, Ditta Franco D'Odorico, Ditta Fiorindo Birri, Ditta Maria Cecilia Framalicco, Autotrasporti Claudio Di Viola & C. Snc and Impresa Amedeo Musso — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismissed the appeal and the interlocutory appeal.

               2.

               Ordered the Italian Republic, Impresa Edo Collorigh and Others and the Commission of the European Communities to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 7.10.2000.


title: Case C-445/10: Order of the President of the Court of 21 March 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 March 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-445/10) (1)

   2011/C 211/45
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.