title: Case C-403/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 17 September 2008 — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Phillip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 17 September 2008 — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Phillip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen
   (Case C-403/08)
   (2008/C 301/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA

      Defendants: QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Phillip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen
   Questions referred
   A.   On the interpretation of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (1)

   Q1   Illicit device

               (a)

               Where a conditional access device is made by or with the consent of a service provider and sold subject to a limited authorisation to use the device only to gain access to the protected service in particular circumstances, does that device become an ‘illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC if it is used to give access to that protected service in a place or in a manner or by a person outside the authorisation of the service provider?

               (b)

               What is the meaning of ‘designed or adapted’ within Article 2(e) of the Directive?

         Q2   Cause of action
   When a first service provider transmits programme content in encoded form to a second service provider who broadcasts that content on the basis of conditional access, what factors are to be taken into account in determining whether the interests of the first provider of a protected service are affected, within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 98/84/EC?
   In particular:
   Where a first undertaking transmits programme content (comprising visual images, ambient sound and English commentary) in encoded form to a second undertaking which in turn broadcasts to the public the programme content (to which it has added its logo and, on occasion, an additional audio commentary track):

               (a)

               Does the transmission by the first undertaking constitute a protected service of ‘television broadcasting’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/84/EC and Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (2)?

               (b)

               Is it necessary for the first undertaking to be a broadcaster within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 89/552/EEC in order to be considered as providing a protected service of ‘television broadcasting’ within the first indent of Article 2(a) of Directive 98/84/EC?

               (c)

               Is Article 5 of Directive 98/84/EC to be interpreted as conferring a civil right of action on the first undertaking in respect of illicit devices which give access to the programme as broadcast by the second undertaking, either:

                           (i)

                           because such devices are to be regarded as giving access via the broadcast signal to the first undertaking's own service; or

                           (ii)

                           because the first undertaking is the provider of a protected service whose interests are affected by an infringing activity (because such devices give unauthorised access to the protected service provided by the second undertaking)?

               (d)

               Is the answer to (c) affected by whether the first and second service providers use different decryption systems and conditional access devices?

         Q3   Commercial purposes
   Does ‘possession for commercial purposes’ in Article 4(a) of the Directive relate only to possession for the purposes of commercial dealings in (for example, sales of) illicit devices,
   or does it extend to the possession of a device by an end user in the course of a business of any kind?
   B.   On the interpretation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (3)

   Q4   Reproduction Right
   Where sequential fragments of a film, musical work or sound recording (in this case frames of digital video and audio) are created (i) within the memory of a decoder or (ii) in the case of a film on a television screen, and the whole work is reproduced if the sequential fragments are considered together but only a limited number of fragments exist at any point in time:

               (a)

               Is the question of whether those works have been reproduced in whole or in part to be determined by the rules of national copyright law relating to what constitutes an infringing reproduction of a copyright work, or is it a matter of interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC?

               (b)

               If it is a matter of interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, should the national court consider all of the fragments of each work as a whole, or only the limited number of fragments which exist at any point in time? If the latter, what test should the national court apply to the question of whether the works have been reproduced in part within the meaning of that Article?

               (c)

               Does the reproduction right in Article 2 extend to the creation of transient images on a television screen?

         Q5   Independent economic significance

               (a)

               Are transient copies of a work created within a satellite television decoder box or on a television screen linked to the decoder box, and whose sole purpose is to enable a use of the work not otherwise restricted by law, to be regarded as having ‘independent economic significance’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC by reason of the fact that such copies provide the only basis upon which the rights holder can extract remuneration for the use of his rights?

               (b)

               Is the answer to Question 5(a) affected by (i) whether the transient copies have any inherent value; or (ii) whether the transient copies comprise a small part of a collection of works and/or other subject matter which otherwise may be used without infringement of copyright; or (iii) whether the exclusive licensee of the rights holder in another Member State has already received remuneration for use of the work in that Member State?

         Q6   Communication to public by wire or wireless means

               (a)

               Is a copyright work communicated to the public by wire or wireless means within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC where a satellite broadcast is received at a commercial premises (for example a bar) and communicated or shown at those premises via a single television screen and speakers to members of the public present in those premises?

               (b)

               Is the answer to Question 6(a) affected if:

                           (i)

                           the members of the public present constitute a new public not contemplated by the broadcaster (in this case because a domestic decoder card for use in one Member State is used for a commercial audience in another Member State)?

                           (ii)

                           the members of the public are not a paying audience according to national law?

                           (iii)

                           the television broadcast signal is received by an aerial or satellite dish on the roof of or adjacent to the premises where the television is situated?

               (c)

               If the answer to any part of (b) is yes, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether there is a communication of the work which has originated from a place where members of the audience are not present?

         C.   On the interpretation of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable transmission (4) and of Articles 28 and 30 and 49 of the EC Treaty
   Q7   Defence under Directive 93/83
   Is it compatible with Directive 93/83/EEC or with Articles 28 and 30 or 49 of the EC Treaty if national copyright law provides that when transient copies of works included in a satellite broadcast are created inside a satellite decoder box or on a television screen, there is an infringement of copyright under the law of the country of reception of the broadcast? Does it affect the position if the broadcast is decoded using a satellite decoder card which has been issued by the provider of a satellite broadcasting service in another Member State on the condition that the satellite decoder card is only authorised for use in that other Member State?
   D.   On the interpretation of the Treaty rules on free movement of goods and services under Articles 28 and 30 and 49 EC in the context of the CAD
   Q8   Defence under Articles 28 and/or 49 EC

               (a)

               If the answer to Q1 is that a conditional access device made by or with the consent of the service provider becomes an ‘illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC when it is used outside the scope of the authorization of the service provider to give access to a protected service, what is the specific subject matter of the right by reference to its essential function conferred by the Conditional Access Directive?

               (b)

               Do Articles 28 or 49 of the EC Treaty preclude enforcement of a provision of national law in a first Member State which makes it unlawful to import or sell a satellite decoder card which has been issued by the provider of a satellite broadcasting service in another Member State on the condition that the satellite decoder card is only authorised for use in that other Member State?

               (c)

               Is the answer affected if the satellite decoder card is authorised only for private and domestic use in that other Member State but used for commercial purposes in the first Member State.

         Q9   Whether the protection afforded to the Anthem can be any broader than that afforded to the rest of the broadcast
   Do Articles 28 and 30 or 49 of the EC Treaty preclude enforcement of a provision of national copyright law which makes it unlawful to perform or play in public a musical work where that work is included in a protected service which is accessed and played in public by use of a satellite decoder card where that card has been issued by the service provider in another Member State on the condition that the decoder card is only authorised for use in that other Member State? Does it make a difference if the musical work is an unimportant element of the protected service as a whole and the showing or playing in public of the other elements of the service are not prevented by national copyright law?
   E.   On the interpretation of the Treaty rules on competition under Article 81 EC
   Q10   Defence under Art 81EC
   Where a programme content provider enters into a series of exclusive licences each for the territory of one or more Member States under which the broadcaster is licensed to broadcast the programme content only within that territory (including by satellite) and a contractual obligation is included in each licence requiring the broadcaster to prevent its satellite decoder cards which enable reception of the licensed programme content from being used outside the licensed territory, what legal test should the national court apply and what circumstances should it take into consideration in deciding whether the contractual restriction contravenes the prohibition imposed by Article 81(1)?
   In particular:

               (a)

               must Article 81(1) be interpreted as applying to that obligation by reason only of it being deemed to have the object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition?

               (b)

               if so, must it also be shown that the contractual obligation appreciably prevents, restricts or distorts competition in order to come within the prohibition imposed by Article 81(1)?

      (1)  OJ L 320, p. 54.

      (2)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television Broadcasting activities (OJ L 298, p. 23).

      (3)  OJ L 167, p. 10.

      (4)  OJ L 248, p. 15.


title: Case C-198/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU — Directive 94/62/EC — Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 — Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State — Excise duty on certain beverage packaging — Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system — Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU — Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages — Justification — Protection of health)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus
   (Case C-198/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU - Directive 94/62/EC - Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 - Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State - Excise duty on certain beverage packaging - Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system - Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU - Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages - Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages - Justification - Protection of health))
   (2016/C 016/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Helsingin hovioikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Valev Visnapuu

      Defendants: Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen valtio — Tullihallitus

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 110 TFEU and Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes an excise duty on certain beverage packaging, but lays down an exemption for packaging integrated into a functioning return system.

               2.

               Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a seller established in another Member State must hold a retail sale licence in order to import alcoholic beverages with a view to their retail sale to consumers residing in the first Member State, where that seller, or someone acting on his behalf, transports those beverages, provided that that legislation is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued, in the present case the protection of health and public policy, that the objective in question could not be achieved with at least an equivalent level of effectiveness by less restrictive methods and that the legislation does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States, which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case T-83/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON).

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/51

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — LTJ Diffusion v OHIM — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON).
   (Case T-83/14)
   2014/C 112/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: LTJ Diffusion (Colombes, France) (represented by: S. Lederman, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arthur et Aston SAS (Giberville, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1963/2012-1 in so far as it ruled that the use of the earlier mark ‘ARTHUR’ No 17731 did not comply with the provisions of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               if the Court, following its case-law (judgment of 4 June 2013, Case T-514/11, ‘DECATHLON’), finds that it has no power to rule on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 since the Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position, it is also asked the following: to refer the case to the competent formation of the Court for a ruling to be made on the merits of the opposition filed by the company LTJ DIFFUSION on 14 April 2011 against the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 9509911, relating to the word sign ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’, to designate certain goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 and specifically ‘footwear, boots and shoes’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Arthur et Aston SAS

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARTHUR & ASTON’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 (Community trade mark application No 9 509 911)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National semi-figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-255/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Social security — Restriction of the freedom to provide services — Non-hospital medical expenses incurred in another Member State — No reimbursement or reimbursement subject to prior authorisation)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-255/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Social security - Restriction of the freedom to provide services - Non-hospital medical expenses incurred in another Member State - No reimbursement or reimbursement subject to prior authorisation)
   2011/C 370/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M.L. Duarte, A. Veiga Correia and by P. Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Reimbursement of non-hospital medical expenses incurred abroad — Prior authorisation — Restrictive conditions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC by making no provision for reimbursement in respect of non-hospital medical care provided in another Member State which does not involve the use of major and costly equipment exhaustively listed in the national legislation, other than in the circumstances specified in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, or, to the extent that Decree-Law No 177/92 of 13 August 1992 laying down the conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred abroad allows the reimbursement of such expenses, by making reimbursement subject to prior authorisation;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-655/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/68

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — van der Parre v Parliament
   (Case T-655/15)
   (2016/C 048/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hugo van der Parre (Huizen, Netherlands) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8334 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-156/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission
   (Case T-156/03) (1)

   (Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2006/C 190/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Orlando Pérez-Diaz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents)
   Re:
   First, an action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-102/01 Pérez-Díaz v Commission (ECR-SC I-A-165 and II-871), and, second, a claim for compensation for the damage supposedly caused by the unlawfulness of that refusal.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter his name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-433/10 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2010 by Volker Mauerhofer against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2010 in Case T-515/08: Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/17

         Appeal brought on 3 September 2010 by Volker Mauerhofer against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2010 in Case T-515/08: Volker Mauerhofer v European Commission
   (Case C-433/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Volker Mauerhofer (represented by: J. Schartmüller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               rule definitively on the substance and annul the contested measure or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to rule again on the case and;

               —

               exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award him the sum of EUR 5 500 by way of compensation for the financial loss resulting from the unlawful conduct in adopting the contested measure and from the lack of appropriate instructions to the team leader (expert 1);

               —

               order that the Framework Contract Support Team should produce the Contractor Assessment Form submitted concerning the project subject of the dispute;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               Distortion of facts concerning the linguistic review of the appellant's contribution;

               —

               Inadequate analysis of the grounds of the Order under appeal concerning the linguistic review;

               —

               Inadequate analysis of the issue concerning the defendant's performance;

               —

               Unlawful assumption that the contested decision does not affect the position of the Appellant as a third party;

               —

               Unlawful assumption that the contested measure brought about no distinct change in the Appellant's legal position;

               —

               Unlawful assumption that the contested measure has not been adopted by the Defendant in the exercise of its powers as a public authority;

               —

               Unlawful assumption that the contested measure was formalised in a timely and correct manner;

               —

               Unlawful breach of the interests of the Appellant by not following prescribed procedures;

               —

               Breach of the general community law principle of equal treatment and breach of the fundamental rights of the Appellant;

               —

               Unlawful assumption of a non-substantial change in the distribution of days among experts;

               —

               Breach of the general community rights to a fair hearing.


title: Case T-123/00: Action brought on 9 May 2000 by Dr. Karl Thomae GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 192/23
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by K & N Efthymiadis S.A.                   — subsidiarily declare Article 4, paragraph 3, point 2 of
against the Commission of the European Communities                           Council Directive 65/65/EEC as amended and Article 1,
                                                                             point 2, 1st indent, Article 2 point 1a and Article 7,
                         (Case T-122/00)                                     point 1a of Council Directive 92/27 as amended as well as
                                                                             the Guideline on Packaging Information illegal in so far as
                         (2000/C 192/43)                                     any of these provisions could be read as containing — as
                                                                             alleged — a requirement to use a single trademark and a
                                                                             single package layout for medicinal products authorised
                   (Language of the case: French)                            under the central marketing authorisation procedure; and
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                — order the defendant to bear the costs of the present
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   proceedings.
European Communities on 8 May 2000 by K & N Efthymiadis
S.A., established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by
Miquel Roca Junyent and Joan Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona
Bar.                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The present application is for the annulment of the decision of
— declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC)                       the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
    No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the                      (EMEA/H/C/135/I/04) rejecting the application for variation of
    detailed rules for the implementation of the second                  the marketing authorisation for ‘Daquiran’ submitted by the
    and third stages of the work programme referred to in                applicant, concerning a change in the name of the product.
    Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC;
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                        The refusal has been justified on the grounds that:
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     — the granting of a single Community Marketing Authoris-
                                                                             ation under the Centralised Procedure requires one single
                                                                             name for the medicinal product being authorised;
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
advanced in Case T-112/00.
                                                                         — the presentations of a medicinal product must be identical
                                                                             throughout the Community.
                                                                         In support of its action, the applicant makes the following
                                                                         submissions:
Action brought on 9 May 2000 by Dr. Karl Thomae
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                         — authorisations and variations to marketing authorisations
                             munities                                        may only be refused when the safety, quality or efficacy of
                                                                             the medicinal product has not been adequately or suf-
                         (Case T-123/00)                                     ficiently demonstrated. A ‘single trademark’ and a ‘single
                                                                             package layout’, to be used in all Member States of
                         (2000/C 192/44)                                     the European Community, should, accordingly, not be
                                                                             considered as a prerequisite for obtaining a marketing
                                                                             authorisation under the Community Marketing Authoris-
                  (Language of the case: English)                            ation regime, and may not be used to refuse marketing
                                                                             authorisations or variations to marketing authorizations.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — The contested decision illegally interferes with the appli-
European Communities on 9 May 2000 by Dr. Karl Thomae                        cant’s right of property as guaranteed by Article 222 of
GmbH, a company incorporated under the law of Germany,                       the EC Treaty (now Article 295 EC) and Article 36 of the
represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, of                       EC Treaty (now Article 30 EC), as well as with the
Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.                                fundamental right to pursue economic activities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — The defendant does not provide adequate reasoning for its
— annul the decision of the European Agency for the                          decision.
    Evaluation of Medicinal Products rejecting the applicant’s
    request for variation to the marketing authorisation of the
    medicinal product Daquiran concerning a change in the
    name of the product;


title: Case C-244/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the French Republic against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 171/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            19.7.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the French Republic
the Court should:                                                        against the European Parliament and the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
1.    declare that by introducing a special rule limiting the
      deductibility of VAT on the purchase of capital goods on
                                                                                (Case C-244/03)
      the ground that they were financed by subsidies, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Community law, and in particular Articles 17 and 19 of                                      (2003/C 171/30)
      the Sixth Council Directive of May 1977, as amended, on
      the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( 1);
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         of the European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the French
                                                                         Republic, represented by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues and
                                                                         Ch. Lemaire, of acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Articles 17 to 20 of the Sixth Directive establish the scheme
for the right of taxable persons to deduct VAT. Taxable persons
who carry out transactions giving rise to the right to deduct            —     Article 1(2) of Directive 2003/15/EC of the European
and at the same time transactions not giving rise to that right                Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 ( 1) in
                                                                               so far as it introduces a new Article 4a into Council
may deduct from the amount of the tax payable by them on
taxed transactions the amount of the tax which they have paid                  Directive 76/768/EEC ( 2) on the approximation of the
on purchases of goods or supplies of services used, within the                 laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products;
limit of a proportion calculated according to the procedures
defined in Article 19.                                                   —     order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
                                                                               the costs.
The French legislation provides for a limit on the deduction of
VAT payable on assets financed by subsidies in certain
conditions not provided for in the Sixth Directive. The system           Pleas in law and main arguments
established by the French legislation for mixed taxable persons
precludes entitlement to deduct the VAT paid on the purchase
of capital goods to the extent of the proportion of that
                                                                         Article 4a of Directive 76/768/EEC, introduced by Article 1(2)
purchase financed by a subsidy, if the proportion thus financed
                                                                         of Directive 2003/15/EC, prohibits the marketing of cosmetic
is not reflected in the price of the taxable transactions. This
                                                                         products where the final formulation, or which contain
exclusion, which concerns purchases of goods assigned to
                                                                         ingredients or combinations of ingredients which have been
activities coming within the scope of the directive, takes affect
                                                                         the subject of animal testing and prohibits the performance on
before any application of the proportion of deduction and
                                                                         their territory of animal testing of finished cosmetic products
reduces the amount of VAT to which that proportion is
                                                                         and of ingredients or combinations of ingredients. That
applied, where appropriate, for the purpose of calculating the
                                                                         prohibition is more severe than the prohibition which preceded
deductible VAT. However, derogations from the right to
                                                                         it and is incompatible with the rules of the World Trade
deduct are permitted only in the cases expressly provided for
                                                                         Organisation.
by the Sixth Directive. The French Government cannot rely on
Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April
1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States
concerning turnover taxes, which provides that VAT is charge-            The French Government is seeking the annulment of
able after deduction of the amount of VAT borne directly by              Article 1(2) of the directive in so far as it infringes the principle
the various costs components, to justify such limitation of the          of legal certainty. The Community legislature has disregarded
right to deduct.                                                         the requirement of legal certainty, since it has failed to define
                                                                         clearly and precisely the scope of Article 4a and has used in
                                                                         several places the imprecise expression ‘in order to meet the
It also appears that the French authorities apply the same               requirements of this Directive’. Article 4a gives rise to sensitive
limitation of deduction to taxable persons who carry out only            questions of interpretation and, consequently, the Member
transactions giving rise to the right to deduct.                         States are likely to transpose the amending directive into their
                                                                         domestic legal systems in divergent ways. Secondly, the
                                                                         requirement of legal certainty is even more important where it
( 1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                                                                         is sought to impose obligations on individuals. In the present
                                                                         case, the lack of precision and the unclear nature of Article 4a
                                                                         do not enable undertakings to determine what circumstances
                                                                         and legal relationships fall within the scope of that article.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/21
That uncertainty is particularly to the detriment of the                        with the intended aim — the improvement to animal
undertakings concerned since in order to maintain their                         welfare is extremely small. Moreover, the implementation
presence on the international markets and avoid falling behind                  of that article is likely to result in the circulation of
in introducing innovations, an essential element of their                       products presenting significant risks to human health as
competitiveness, European industries should be in a position                    a result of the mismatch between the object of Article 4a
to determine exactly what legal situations fall within the scope                and the envisaged state of scientific knowledge.
of Article 4a of the directive.
In the alternative, the French Government takes the view that
that article should be annulled inasmuch as it infringes the              —     precaution: the Community legislature has allowed
following principles:                                                           human health to be exposed to unacceptable risks.
— freedom to pursue a professional activity: Article 4a
     introduces restrictions to the right to pursue freely a              —     non-discrimination: Article 4a is likely to upset the level
     professional activity despite not being consonant with an                  of equality among undertakings in the cosmetics industry
     objective of general interest pursued by the Community,                    for no objective reason.
     namely the welfare of animals and, in any event, such
     restrictions constitute, in view of their intention, excessive
     and intolerable interference.
— proportionality: the inconvenience caused by the                        (1 ) OJ 2003 L 66, p. 26.
     implementation of Article 4a are excessive by comparison             (2 ) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 January 1998 in Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Decision reassigning an official - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 94/20               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 29 January 1998                                                 of 29 January 1998
                                                                   in Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte v. Commission of the
in Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &
                                                                                European Communities (1)
 Export Corporation v. Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Partial permanent invalidity Ð Accident Ð
(Anti-dumping Ð Furfuraldehyde Ð Factors justifying the                           Link between cause and effect)
opening of an investigation Ð Principle of proportionality
Ð Injury Ð Rejection of an undertaking Ð Regulation                                        (98/C 94/52)
                     (EEC) No 2423/88)
                         (98/C 94/51)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-62/96: Willy de Corte, an official of the
               (Language of the case: English)                     Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Halle (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias
                                                                   Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
In Case T-97/95: Sinochem National Chemicals Import &              (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the
Export Corporation established in Beijing, represented by          decision of the Commission of 16 June 1995 refusing to
Jean-FrancËois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        accept, in accordance with the rules on insurance against
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and            the risk of accident, financial responsibility for the
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union             consequences of an infarction suffered by the applicant
(Agents: initially Yves Cretien and Antonio Tanca,                 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the
subsequently Mr Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.               decision of 25 January 1996 expressly rejecting the
Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European                 applicant's complaint Ð the Court of First Instance
Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural                    (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
EspanÄol SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain),                  President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; A.
represented by JoseÂ Rivas de AndreÂs, of the Madrid Bar,          Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde
Ð for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 95/
95 of 16 January 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping           1. dismisses the application;
duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the
People's Republic of China (OJ L 15, 21.1.1995, p. 11) Ð
the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                   2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the
Chamber, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Registrar, gave a judgment on             (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
29 January 1998 in which it:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 22 January 1998
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                   in Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
    the costs of the Council and of the intervener Furfural
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    EspanÄol;
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision reassigning an official Ð Article 7
                                                                   of the Staff Regulations Ð Annex X to the Staff
                                                                                Regulations)
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                            (98/C 94/53)
(1) OJ C 159, 24.6.1995.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-98/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/21
Kinshasa, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the                     GonzaÂlez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 January
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                      1998 in which it:
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
TheÂreÁse, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially, Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves          1. dismisses the application;
Vieira and, subsequently, Mr Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application, first, for annulment
of the decision' of the Committee for the Administration           2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
of Delegations, contained in a memorandum of 30 April
1996, and, second, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to              (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January
1998, in which it:
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                             of 6 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v.
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                            public access to Commission documents Ð Decision
                                                                    refusing access to documents Ð Protection of the public
                                                                                interest (court proceedings))
                                                                                (98/C 94/55)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                          (Language of the case: German)
                     of 29 January 1998
in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA v. Council             In Case T-124/96: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                established in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Georg
                       Communities (1)                              M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles,
(Non-contractual liability Ð Single European Act Ð                  8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                       Customs agent)                               European Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker) Ð
                         (98/C 94/54)                               application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                    29 May 1996 confirming its refusal to grant the applicant
                                                                    access to certain of its documents Ð the Court of First
               (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                    composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
                                                                    Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1998 in Case T-113/96: EÂdouard Dubois et Fils SA whose             6 February 1998, in which it:
registered office is in Roubaix (France), represented by
Pierre Ricard and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1. annuls the Commission's decision of 29 Mai 1996
Chambers of Marc Feiler, 67 Rue Ermesinde v. Council of                 refusing the applicant access to certain documents held
the European Union (Agents: Guus Houttuin and Maria                     by the Commission;
Christina Giorgi) and Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser,
and Fernando Castillo de la Torre) Ð application for                2. dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph                 seeks the issue of directions to the Commission;
of Article 215 of the EC Treaty and for an order requiring
the Community to make good the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant owing to the completion, as of
                                                                    3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with
the Single European Act, and the consequent abolition of
the customs agency work in which it had been engaged                (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
until that date on French territory Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. García-Valdecasas (President
of the Chamber), J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio


title: Case C-359/15 P: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 1 June 2016 — The National Iranian Gas Company v Council of the European Union

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/19

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 1 June 2016 — The National Iranian Gas Company v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-359/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 326/33)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-482/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2007 — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom, also operating under the name Octrooicentrum Nederland

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2007 — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom, also operating under the name Octrooicentrum Nederland
   (Case C-482/07)
   (2008/C 8/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AHP Manufacturing BV

      Defendant: Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (Industrial Property Office), also operating under the name Octrooicentrum Nederland (Netherlands Patent Centre)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1), as subsequently amended, and more specifically Article 3(1)(c) thereof, preclude the grant of a certificate to the holder of a basic patent for a product for which, at the time of the submission of the application for a certificate, one or more certificates have already been granted to one or more holders of one or more other basic patents?

               2.

               Does Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (2), as subsequently amended, and more specifically recital 17 and the second sentence of Article 3(2) thereof, give rise to a different answer to Question 1?

               3.

               When answering the previous questions, is it relevant whether the last application submitted, like the previous application or applications, is submitted within the period prescribed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 or that prescribed by Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92?

               4.

               When answering the previous questions, is it relevant whether the period of protection afforded by the grant of a certificate pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 expires at the same time as, or at a later time than, under one or more certificates already granted for the product concerned?

               5.

               When answering the previous questions, is it relevant that Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not specify the period within which the competent authority, as referred to in Article 9(1) of that Regulation, must process the application for a certificate and ultimately grant a certificate, as a result of which a difference in the speed with which the authorities concerned in the Member States process applications may lead to differences between them as to the possibility of a certificate being granted?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.


title: Case C-525/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava — Spain) — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava — Spain) — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada
   (Case C-525/15) (1)

   (2017/C 129/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


title: Case F-30/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 –Chaouch v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Establishment of entitlement — Entry into service as probationary official — Change of residence after establishment to be taken into account — Official’s duty of residence under Article 20 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 –Chaouch v Commission
   (Case F-30/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Remuneration - Installation allowance - Establishment of entitlement - Entry into service as probationary official - Change of residence after establishment to be taken into account - Official’s duty of residence under Article 20 of the Staff Regulations)
   2011/C 252/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dhikra Chaouch (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to grant the applicant installation allowance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr. Chaouch’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr. Chaouch to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129 of 06.06.2009, p. 21.


title: Case T-725/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market — Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/32

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA
   (Case T-725/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 191/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the suspension of operation of the EFSA Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite 4-chloroaniline (PCA) in respect of which the applicant requested partial confidential treatment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Action brought on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-186/97)

text:
No C 212/ 16             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 7. 97
       objectives designed to reduce pollution by the                         (i)      the complainant          was     employed   by     the
       substances in List II of the Annex to the Directive, the                        Respondent;
       Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                       ( ii ) during her employment, the complainant brought
                                                                                a claim of sex discrimination against the
                                                                                Respondent which was compromised;
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
       costs of the proceedings.                                              ( iii ) following the end of her employment, the
                                                                                complainant has made efforts to find full-time
                                                                                work, but has been unsuccessful ;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              ( iv ) the Respondent has caused or contributed to the
It is evident from the wording of Article 7 ( 1 ) of the                               complainant's difficulties in finding work by
Directive, in conjunction with Article 1 thereof, that                                 refusing to provide references to potential
Member States were required to establish programmes                                    employers when requested to do so;
with quality objectives designed to reduce water pollution
within a specified period. The German Federal                                 ( v ) the employer's decision to refuse to provide
                                                                                references   was    taken    after the  end   of    the
Government, on the other hand, wrongly argues that most
of the substances in question were covered by overall                                  complainant's employment;
parameters, and attempts to demonstrate the equivalence
and/or advantages of these national rules vis-a-vis the                        (vi ) the reason, or a principle reason, for the
emission norms for individual substances. Likewise, the                                employer's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                reference to the complainant was that she had
existence of general programmes for water purification, as
                                                                                previously brought a claim of sex discrimination
cited by the German Federal Government (2 ), cannot be
                                                                                against the Respondent.
regarded as constituting an adequate implementation of
Article 7 .
                                                                         2.    Does         Council    Directive     76/207/EEC     on     the
                                                                               implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
O OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
( 2 ) Inter alia, the Elbe Action Programme of the 'International
                                                                               men and women as regards access to employment,
      Commission for the Protection of the Elbe ' ( IKSE ) and the             vocational training and promotion, and working
      IKSE's operational plan to the year 2000, the Rhine Action               conditions, require Member States to introduce into
      Programme of the ' International Commission for the                      their national legal systems such measures as are
      Protection of the Rhine ' ( ISKR), and the action programme              necessary to enable persons to pursue a claim by
      anticipating the Danube Convention .                                     judicial process where the circumstances set out under
                                                                               point 1 apply, save that:
                                                                               (i)      the Respondent's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                reference was taken before the termination of the
                                                                                complainant's employment; but
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment                            ( ii ) the actual refusal or refusals to provide a
 Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 20 November                                 reference took place after the termination of the
 1996, in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against Granada                                   complainant's employment.
                             Hospitality Ltd
                           ( Case C-185 /97 )                             (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                              97/C 212/28 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Employment                       Action brought on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of
 Appeal Tribunal of 20 November 1996, which was                           the European Communities against the Federal Republic
 received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1997, for a                                                    of Germany
 preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against
 Granada Hospitality Ltd, on the following questions:                                                ( Case C-l 86/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/29 )
  1 . Does Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
        1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
        treatment for men and women as regards access to                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        employment, vocational training and promotion, and                Communities on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of the
        working conditions (^, require Member States to                   European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
        introduce into their national legal systems such                  Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        measures as are necessary to enable a complainant to               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        pursue a claim by judicial process where the following             Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
        circumstances apply:                                               C 254, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7. 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               users in its area, if the purpose is to protect the supply
                                                                           undertaking which it owns itself from competition in
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  its area arising from use of the transit main ?
      period the measures necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/71 /EEC ( ] ), the Federal               3 . If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative:
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and                    Is a local authority or a legally independent supply
                                                                           undertaking owned by it ( with which the local
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   authority has concluded an exclusive agreement for
                                                                           the use of its roads ) to be regarded, in relation to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        local distribution of natural gas to end-users , as
                                                                           entrusted with the operation of a service of general
                                                                           economic interest within the meaning of Article 90 ( 2 )
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                    of the EC Treaty, where such distribution is not a task
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                       assigned by the State — and is equally open to purely
requires the Member States to transpose the provisions of                   private undertakings — where the local authority may
a Directive into internal law so that they produce their full
                                                                            nevertheless carry out the task as a local community
effect by the expiry of the period prescribed for that                      matter and where, in providing such supplies, that
purpose . That period came to an end on 3 August 1994                       local authority ( or its supply undertaking ) is — like
without Germany having enacted the necessary provisions .                   private undertakings — subject to State supervision
                                                                            and under a general obligation to provide connections
(') OJ No L 221 , 31 . 8 . 1993 , p. 27 .                                   and to supply gas ?
                                                                       4 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the
                                                                            affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                                   When examining whether, pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 )
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March                        of the EC Treaty, agreements of the kind described are
1997 in the case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall                      not subject to Article 85 thereof, is account to be
               Gas GmbH) against Stadt Detmold                              taken only of factors relating to ensuring a reliable
                                                                            and reasonably-priced local supply of natural gas, or
                           Case C-187/97 )                                  are factors relating to other matters in the public
                            ( 97/C 212/30 )                                 interest ( in particular environmental protection ) also
                                                                            to be taken into account ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 5 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative
European Communities by order of the Kartellsenat                           and if, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 90 ( 2 )
 ( Cartel Chamber ) of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court                 of the EC Treaty, the Treaty rules on competition are
 of Justice ) of 11 March 1997, received at the Court                       not to be applied:
 Registry on 15 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
 case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH )
 against Stadt Detmold on the following questions:                           Are agreements of the kind described in Questions 1
                                                                             and 2 between local authorities and natural gas supply
                                                                             undertakings, eliminating competition in the local
 1 . Does Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                      supply of natural gas, to be deemed to affect the
       agreement under which a local authority grants a                      development of trade to an extent contrary to the
       supply undertaking, which is legally independent but                  interest of the Community ?
       owned by it, the exclusive right to use its public roads
       to lay and maintain mains for the direct supply of
       natural gas to end-users and thereby de facto
       eliminates competition in supply within its area, where
       that agreement is one of a number of similar
       (concession ) agreements which — also in conjunction
       with demarcation agreements between supply                       Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
       undertakings — partition off entire national supply              against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the
       markets from competition within the gas sector by                Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       domestic or Community competitors ?                              European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B.
                                                                        Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
  2 . In the circumstances set out in Question 1 , does
       Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                                           ( Case C-188/97 P)
       agreement concluded by a local authority with a                                            ( 97/C 212/31 )
       supply undertaking concerning the laying of a natural
       gas transit main through its municipal area, under
       which it obliges that supply undertaking not to use              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 March
        that main for the direct supply of natural gas to end           1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-274/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany)) — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau (Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public service concession — Rescue service — Distinction between ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’ )

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany)) — Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler v Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau
   (Case C-274/09) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service concession - Rescue service - Distinction between ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’)
   2011/C 139/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Privater Rettungsdienst und Krankentransport Stadler

      Defendant: Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Passau

      Interveners: Malteser Hilfdienst eV, Bayerisches Rotes Kreuz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) and Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Concepts of ‘public service contract’ and ‘service concession’ — Contract relating to the supply of emergency medical assistance services, concluded between the contracting authority and aid organisations, which provides that the payment for the services supplied depends on negotiations between those organisations and third parties such as social security institutions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(d) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where the economic operator selected is fully remunerated by persons other than the contracting authority which awarded the contract concerning rescue services, where it runs an operating risk, albeit a very limited one, by reason inter alia of the fact that the amount of the usage fees in question depends on the result of annual negotiations with third parties, and where it is not assured full coverage of the costs incurred in managing its activities in compliance with the principles laid down by national law, that contract must be classified as a ‘service concession’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


C 258/40              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
       Removal from the register of Case T-271/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case T-284/97 (1)
                        (98/C 258/73)                                                      (98/C 258/74)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 18 June 1998 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            By order of 11 June 1998 the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Case T-271/97: Patrick Fischbach and Others v                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Commission of the European Communities.                           of Case T-284/97: Thierry Bigard v Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case C-511/11 P: Appeal brought on 4 October 2011 by Polimeri Europa SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/13

         Appeal brought on 4 October 2011 by Polimeri Europa SpA against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/07 Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case C-511/11 P)
   2011/C 340/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F.M. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the judgment of the General Court in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and, consequently:

                           —

                           set aside in whole or in part Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) (‘the Decision’); and/or

                           —

                           annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on Polimeri by the Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the action brought by Polimeri in Case T-59/07 and refer the case back to the General Court for an adjudication on the merits in the light of the guidance with which the Court will provide it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings in Case T-59/07.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court made a serious error in law in its understanding of the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 and, as a consequence, based on mistaken premises its rejection of Polimeri’s third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence arising from the divergence between the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 and the Decision as regards the manner in which liability was attributed as between Polimeri and Syndial.
   The General Court misapplied the relevant Community case-law in attributing liability for the infringement to Polimeri and excluding Syndial from the list of addressees of the Decision, and failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri.
   The General Court misapplied the relevant Community case-law in assessing Polimeri’s claims relating to the discrepancies between the statements made by various employees of the undertakings who had cooperated under the Leniency Notice in respect of certain aspects of the alleged infringement. In disregarding important exculpatory evidence, the General Court failed to conduct a full review of the evidence put forward by the Commission.
   The General Court failed to point out that the Commission had made serious errors in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and in categorising as ‘very serious’ the infringement found in the Decision; it also failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri. The General Court failed to conduct a full review of the calculation of the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri.
   The General Court failed to point out that the Commission had made serious errors in the determination of the multiplier, giving insufficient reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in this connection by Polimeri. The General Court also failed to point out that, in determining the multiplier, the Commission had acted in breach of the principle of equal treatment; it also gave insufficient reasons for rejecting the criticisms made in that regard by Polimeri.
   The General Court made a serious error in applying the relevant Community case-law for the purposes of assessing the criticisms made by Polimeri regarding the inadmissibility of certain annexes to the application initiating proceedings and failed to give sufficient reasons in that regard. In so doing, the General Court undermined the arguments put forward by Polimeri in its defence against the objections relating to the existence of the cartel and Polimeri’s participation in that cartel, and thereby failed unlawfully to carry out its duty to conduct a full review of the facts alleged by the Commission.


C 264/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                       1.11.2003
Action brought on 19 September 2003 by the Com-                                  Removal from the register of Case C-214/02 (1)
mission of the European Communities against the
                  Kingdom of the Netherlands                                                      (2003/C 264/45)
                        (Case C-395/03)                                    By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2003/C 264/44)                                    from the register of Case C-214/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                           Vorarlberg): Gerhard Lintschinger.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought               (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils and K. Banks, acting as
Agents.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-219/02 (1)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (2003/C 264/46)
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to give effect to                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Directive 98/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of             register of Case C-219/02: Commission of the European
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
      biotechnological inventions, or in any event by failing to
      inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom
      of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under        (1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
      that directive;
2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-242/02 and
                                                                                C-243/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2003/C 264/47)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed                 By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
expired on 30 July 2000.                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Joined Cases C-214/02 and C-243/02
                                                                           (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.7.1998, p. 13.                                          Verwaltungssenat des Salzburg): Manfred Hückel.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case F-12/10: Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Kerstens v European Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/79

         Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Kerstens v European Commission
   (Case F-12/10)
   2010/C 113/117
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant a disciplinary penalty in the form of a written warning.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 23 April 2009 imposing on the applicant a disciplinary penalty in the form of a written warning;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-127/11: Action brought on 29 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/21

         Action brought on 29 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-127/11)
   2012/C 65/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the jury’s decision not to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the jury's decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10;

               —

               annul the jury's decision of 4 April 2011 confirming its decision of 3 February 2011 not to add the applicant's name to the reserve list in open competition EPSO/AD/177/10;

               —

               annul EPSO’s decision of 29 August 2011 rejecting the appeal brought by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the staff regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-310/12: Action brought on 12 July 2012 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/20

         Action brought on 12 July 2012 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council
   (Case T-310/12)
   2012/C 273/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (Yuan Ping City, Xin Zhou, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 of 12 April 2012, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2012 L 106, p. 1);

               —

               Order that all the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) (‘the basic Regulation’), stipulating that injury refers to injury to the ‘Union industry’; and violation of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation on the definition of the Union industry, as the defendant has wrongly defined the Union industry by including two non-cooperating producers, of which one had ceased production several years before the investigation period.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 3(2) and Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, requiring the assessment of injury to the Union industry to be based on positive evidence following an objective assessment of all relevant factors, as the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in analysing the injury factors on the basis of two separate and conflicting sets of data (micro- and macro-economic factors) in a selective fashion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties be imposed only insofar as they are necessary to offset the effects of injurious dumping; Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, requiring that duties are collected independently of the customs duties, taxes and other charges; and Articles 20(1) and 20(2) of the basic Regulation, requiring the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which anti-dumping duties are imposed, as the defendant committed a series of manifest errors in calculating the injury margin and also failed to produce a statement of reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, a minimum 10 day period to submit comments on any definitive disclosure as well as of the general principles of non-discrimination, and the duty of good administration, as the defendant has granted the applicant a shorter time limit to respond to the investigation’s definitive disclosure than the time limit granted to all other parties in the proceedings.