title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98 (references for preliminary rulings from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Leszek Labis, trading as "Przedsiebiorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe Met-Trans" C-310/98), and Sagpol SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja (C-406/98) (Free movement of goods — External transit transaction — Movement under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or irregularities — Evidence of the place where the offence or irregularity was committed — Time-limit for producing evidence — Types of evidence admissible — Compensation procedure)

text:
27.5.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 149/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 March 2000
                         of 23 March 2000
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98 (references for
in Case C-246/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  preliminary rulings from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzol-
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem): criminal pro-                     lamt Neubrandenburg v Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsie-
ceedings against Berendse-Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D.                     biorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ C-310/
                            Maatschap (1)                                  98), and Sagpol SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja
                                                                                (C-406/98) (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Prohibition on growth promoters
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — External transit transaction —
             — Measures having equivalent effect)
                                                                           Movement under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or
                                                                           irregularities — Evidence of the place where the offence or
                                                                           irregularity was committed — Time-limit for producing
                          (2000/C 149/14)                                  evidence — Types of evidence admissible — Compensation
                                                                                procedure)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                     (2000/C 149/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-246/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Arnhem, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in
the criminal proceedings before that court against Berendse-               In Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98: Hauptzollamt Neu-
Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D. Maatschap, on the interpret-                  brandenburg and Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsiebiorstwo
ation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                     Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ (C-310/98), and Sagpol
laying down a procedure for the provision of information in                SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja (C-406/98) —
the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983                  Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC
L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of                Treaty (now Article 234 EC), by the Bundesfinanzhof, Ger-
22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and Articles 30 and                   many, in proceedings before that court on the interpretation
36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC                  of Articles 454 and 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
and 30 EC) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                       No 2454/93, of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
mann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                  establishing the Community customs code (OJ 1993 L 253,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the              p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which                 President of the Chamber acting as President of the Fifth
it has ruled:                                                              Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm
                                                                           and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                           H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                           a judgment on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC) does not preclude a        provides as follows:
national rule such as that laid down by Article 3(1) of the
Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische werking (PVV)
1991, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof.                          1. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                               the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
                                                                               establishing the Community customs code must be interpreted as
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                      meaning that the evidence as to where an offence or irregularity
                                                                               was committed required by the customs authorities of the Member
                                                                               State where that offence or irregularity was discovered need not
                                                                               consist only of written documents establishing that the competent
                                                                               authorities of another Member State have made a finding that
                                                                               the offence or irregularity was committed in their country.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            27.5.2000
2. The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 454(3) of Regulation          Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
     No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the compen-             judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:
     sation mechanism established by that article also applies where
     the duties and other charges have been levied by the Member            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
     State where the offence was discovered, even though it has been             laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
     satisfactorily proved that the offence was actually committed in            comply with Articles 9 to 12 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC
     another Member State.                                                       of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating
                                                                                to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for
3. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of                   civil uses, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that                   under that Directive;
     the customs authorities of the Member State where the offence or
     irregularity was discovered cannot impose on the holder of the         2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
     TIR carnet a time-limit of three months in which to provide
     satisfactory evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was      (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
     actually committed. The time-limit under the first paragraph of
     Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 for producing
     evidence as to where the offence or irregularity was committed is
     one year.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998 and OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 28 March 2000
                                                                            in Case C-158/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen): proceedings for
                                                                            a review of legality on an application by Georg Badeck
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 and Others (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Equal treatment of men and women — Employment in the
                                                                              administration — Measures for the promotion of women)
                           of 23 March 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 149/17)
in Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                         Directive 93/15/EEC)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 149/16)                                 In Case C-158/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Staatsgerichtshof
                                                                            des Landes Hessen, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                        proceedings for a review of legality on an application by Georg
                                                                            Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessischer Ministerpräsident
                                                                            and Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      on the interpretation of Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive
                     in the European Court Reports)                         76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
                                                                            the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
In Case C-327/98: Commission of the European Communities                    access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
(Agents: R. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                     and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court,
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Wibaux) —                      composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within              de Almeida and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
measures necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12 and                G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the              has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993
L 121, p. 20), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                 Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), and C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                and promotion, and working conditions does not preclude a national
P. Jann, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-                 rule which


title: Case C-662/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 13 December 2013 — Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-662/13)
   2014/C 78/06
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Surgicare — Unidades de Saúde SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Question referred

   When the tax authorities suspect the existence of an abusive practice designed to obtain a VAT refund and Portuguese law provides for a mandatory preliminary procedure applicable to abusive practices in taxation matters, is that procedure to be regarded as inapplicable to VAT, given the Community origin of that tax?


title: Case T-41/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Vakakis v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/67

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Vakakis v Commission
   (Case T-41/08) (1)

   (2008/C 209/121)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-293/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles): Gregorio My v Office national des pensions (ONP) (Community officials — Transfer of pension rights — Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Early retirement pension — Reckoning of periods of employment with the European Community — Article 10 EC)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-293/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles): Gregorio My v Office national des pensions (ONP)
       (1)

   (Community officials - Transfer of pension rights - Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Early retirement pension - Reckoning of periods of employment with the European Community - Article 10 EC)
   (2005/C 45/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-293/03: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium), made by decision of 20 May 2003, received at the Court on 4 July 2003, in the proceedings between Gregorio My and Office national des pensions (ONP) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which does not permit years of employment completed by a Community citizen in the service of a Community institution to be taken into account for the purposes of entitlement to an early retirement pension under the national scheme is contrary to those provisions.

      (1)   OJ C 251 of 8.10.2003.


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-407/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 46/ 11
4 . According to the decision, GSM radiotelephony services                 Commerce ( Commercial Court), Paris, ( First Chamber A ) of
       ' should . . . probably be regarded as also constituting a          27 November 1995 , received at the Court Registry on
       market separate from the market for analogue mobile                 29 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       telephony'. In the view of the Italian Government, that             Eurotunnel SA, France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and
       conclusion is mistaken and, in any event, insufficiently            The Channel Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle
       substantiated .                                                     d'Armement Transmanche — Voluntary interveners :
                                                                           International Duty Free Confederation , Airport Operators
5 . The contested decision is vitiated by errors of assessment             Association Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre
       and a defective statement of reasons .
                                                                           Irlande and Passenger Shipping Association Limited — on
                                                                           the following questions :
0 ) OJ No L 280 , 23 . 11 . 1995 , p . 49 .
                                                                           1 . Given the fact that Eurotunnel did not bring an action
                                                                                pursuant to Article 173 for the annulment of those parts
                                                                                of Council Directives 91 /680/EEC and 92/ 12/EEC
                                                                                relating to taxation (VAT and excise duty ) on
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Kingdom of                              cross-channel links ( J ) and that an application brought
Belgium against the Commission of the European                                    by Eurotunnel in the High Court of Justice was
                               Communities
                                                                                dismissed by decision of 17 February 1995 , will an
                           ( Case C-407/95 )                                      application for their annulment brought by Eurotunnel
                               ( 96/C 46/ 19 )                                    lie pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty ?
An action against the Commission of the European                           2 . If so, did the Chamber adopt those directives
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        lawfully ?
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director                          In the alternative, does Directive 94/4/EC ( 2 ) cover a
of Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                             possible annulment of those two directives ?
Foreign Trade and Development Aid, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des                    3 . In the event of annulment, must the fact that SA SNAT
Girondins .                                                                       — Nouvelle d'Armement Transmanche — applied the
                                                                                fiscal laws adopted pursuant to those directives be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      imputed to it as a fault ? If so, as from what date was the
                                                                                fault committed ?
annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 on the
exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff               ( J ) Council Directive 91 /680/EEC, Article 1 ( 22 ) ( Article 28k of
quota for imports of bananas during the fourth quarter of                         Directive 77/388/EEC ) ( OJ 1991 L 376 , pp . 1 and 17 ); Council
 1995 as a result of tropical storms Iris, Luis and Marilyn ( 1 ),                Directive 92/ 12/EEC, Article 28 ( OJ 1992 L 76 , pp . 1 and
and order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       12 ).
                                                                            ( 2 ) Council Directive 94/4/EC ( OJ 1994 L 60, p . 14 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
 invoked against Regulation ( EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case
 C-9/95 ( 2 ).
 (') OJ No L 241 , 10 . 10 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen by order of that court of
                                                                            21 December 1995 in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
                                                                                Nordrhein-Westfalen
                                                                                ( Case C-409/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/21 )
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
 Commerce de Paris ( First Chamber A) by judgment of that
 court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eurotunnel SA,                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 France Manche SA, Eurotunnel PLC and the Channel                            European Communities by an order of the First Chamber of
 Tunnel Group Limited v. SA SNAT Nouvelle d'Armement                         the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen ( Gelsenkirchen
                                                                             Administrative Court) of 21 December 1995 , which was
 Transmanche — Voluntary interveners: International Duty
 Free Confederation, Airport Operators Association                           received at the Court Registry on 29 December 1995 , for a
 Limited, Cie Maritime Bretagne Angleterre Irlande and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Hellmut Marschall v. Land
              Passenger Shipping Association Limited                         Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
                             ( Case C-408/95 )                               Does Article 2(1 ) and ( 4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
                                 ( 96/C 46/20 )                              of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle
                                                                             of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     employment, vocational training and promotion, and
  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        working conditions ( ] ) preclude a rule of national law under


title: Case C-238/00 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European Parliament

text:
C 233/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September               Pleas in law and main arguments
            1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/
            EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
            and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (2),                     advanced in Case C-236/00 (2); the period for transposition
                                                                       expired on 30 June 1998.
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply
      with its obligations under Article 10 of Directive
      98/51/EC and Article 7 of Directive 98/67/EC;                    (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 25.
                                                                       (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC obliges        the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of
the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in order             First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)
to transpose directives into their national legal order within         in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European
the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in                                           Parliament
question expired on 31 December 1998 but the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures.                                          (Case C-238/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/42)
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000
                                                                       by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the
                                                                       European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Peter
                                                                       Reichert, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                       Eicklöhken 19, D-45549 Sprockhövel (Germany), with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of                    Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box 335, L-2013 Luxembourg.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the
                        (Case C-237/00)                                      Court of First Instance in Case T-18/98;
                        (2000/C 233/41)                                —     itself determine the appellant’s application for the grant
                                                                             of the expatriation allowance, or alternatively refer the
                                                                             case back to the Court of First Instance for re-examination
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          and a fresh decision;
brought before the Court of Justice on 14 June 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 —     order the European Parliament, as respondent, to pay the
Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an               costs of the entire proceedings.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     The appellant’s employment as a correspondent in the
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Brussels press office of the VWD, which was taken into
the Court should:                                                            consideration in the contested judgment as a ground for
                                                                             the refusal of the expatriation allowance, lasted only
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or notify within the                 20 months and thus does not in any way constitute a
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and admi-                  substantial part of the 66-month period referred to in
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with                  Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
      Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on                      officials.
      marine equipment (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 20       —     The Court of First Instance failed to give any consideration
      of that directive and under the provisions of the EC                   to the professional position occupied by the appellant
      Treaty;                                                                during the remaining period (namely, that of Brussels
                                                                             correspondent for the publication ‘Wirtschaftswoche’, the
—     order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                      editorial headquarters of which is situated in Düsseldorf).
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-59/03: Action brought on 19 February 2003 by TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/49
Commission and inequality of treatment in that the Com-                   Opodo, alleging infringements of Article 81 and 82 of the EC
mission recognised in the case of another undertaking involved            Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejects the
in the same procedure mitigating factors which it denied the              complaint of the applicant.
applicant.
                                                                          In support of their application, the applicants invoke a
                                                                          manifest error of assessment and an infringement of the
                                                                          Commission’s obligation to investigate complaints with due
                                                                          diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under
                                                                          Article 81(1) EC Treaty.
Action brought on 19 February 2003 by TQ3 Travel
Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Opodo is a joint selling agency set up by competitors
                                                                          representing most of the airline sector and provides, according
                         (Case T-59/03)
                                                                          to the applicants, a significant opportunity for those airlines
                                                                          to align their prices. The applicants claim that the Commission
                        (2003/C 101/85)                                   made a manifest error of assessment in reaching its conclusion
                                                                          that the undertakings will ensure that Opodo is not used for
                                                                          the exchange of commercially sensitive information and that
                  (Language of the case: English)                         Opodo will not be used as a vehicle for the shareholders to
                                                                          coordinate their competitive behaviour. The applicants invoke
                                                                          furthermore an infringement of the obligation of the Com-
                                                                          mission to investigate complaints with due diligence, an
                                                                          infringement of the applicant’s right to receive a response to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 its complaint, and a manifest error of assessment with respect
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                to the distortion of competition in the distribution of airline
European Communities on 19 February 2003 by TQ3 Travel                    tickets under Article 81(1) EC Treaty.
Solutions GmbH, Bremen, Germany, and TQ3 Travel Solutions
EMEA GmbH, Bremen, Germany, represented by Dr Thomas
Jestaedt, Mr Christopher Thomas and Dr Thomas Loest,
Lawyers.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the Commission failed to address
                                                                          the specific concern in the complaint that the Opodo infringed
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 81(1) EC Treaty because it was intended to and would
                                                                          have the effect of enabling the airlines to secure joint control
                                                                          of the distribution of airline tickets, forcing independent travel
—     annul the Commission decision of 9 December 2002                    agencies out of the market.
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint in Case COMP/
      A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Lim-
      ited;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.                  Finally, the applicants invoke an infringement of the obligation
                                                                          of the Commission to investigate complaints with due dili-
                                                                          gence, an error of law and a manifest error of assessment with
                                                                          respect to discrimination under Article 82(2) EC Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants are active in the travel agency business,                  According to the applicants, the Commission failed to investi-
especially for business passenger air transport services and              gate with due diligence the price comparisons provided in the
connected services.                                                       complaint showing apparent discrimination. The applicants
                                                                          claim the Commission made an error of law in taking the
                                                                          position that the denial of lower priced tickets might be
                                                                          justified by the fact that the applicants focus on business
On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up                  travellers and made an error of assessment when rejecting the
Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the             relevance of the price comparisons.
largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission.
Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out
the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the
intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture, one of
the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of


title: Case C-426/14: Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Heart Life Croce Amica Srl v Regione Piemonte

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Heart Life Croce Amica Srl v Regione Piemonte
   (Case C-426/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-312/08: Action brought on 14 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/37

         Action brought on 14 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-312/08)
   (2008/C 223/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC, of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 363, p. 141.


C 121/14              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.5.1999
References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-                          Removal from the register of Case C-289/98 (1)
tungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by orders of that court of
23 February 1999 in the cases of Ernst-Otto Flemmer,                                           (1999/C 121/27)
Renate Christoffel and Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                      By order of 16 December 1998 the president of the Court of
Communities represented by Bundesanstalt Für                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung                          from the register of Case C-289/98: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
            (Cases C-80/99, C-81/99 and C-82/99)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                        (1999/C 121/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the First Chamber of the
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main
of 23 February 1999, which were received at the Court
Registry on 4 March 1999, for preliminary rulings in the cases                Removal from the register of Case C-197/97 (1)
of 1. Ernst Otto Flemmer, 2. Renate Christoffel 3. And
Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of the European Union and                                      (1999/C 121/28)
Commission of the European Communities represented by
Bundesanstalt für Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung on the fol-            By order of 27 January 1999 the president of the Court of
lowing questions:                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-197/97 (reference for a preliminary
a) Is the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty in          ruling from the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal): Donna Marie
    conjunction with Article 178 of the EC Treaty in conjunc-          Davies v. Girobank plc.
    tion with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of         (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
    Justice also has jurisdiction in disputes which derive from
    a contract concluded by the competent national authority
    in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission
    in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93
    providing for an offer of compensation to certain pro-
    ducers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented
    from carrying on their trade?
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-24/98 (1)
b) If that question is answered in the negative and if there is a
    case falling within the first paragraph of Article 215 of the                              (1999/C 121/29)
    EC Treaty and if the national courts thus have jurisdiction
    under Article 183 of the EC Treaty, the further question           By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    arises whether the provisions of national procedural law           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    or the general principles of law common to the legal               from the register of Case C-24/98: Commission of the
    systems of the Member States are to be applied to such a           European Communities v. Ireland.
    contract, in so far as Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 makes
    no provision.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
c) If the general principles of law are applicable, the question
    then arises whether and under what conditions the com-
    petent national authority may set aside in whole or in part
    a contract concluded in the name and on behalf of the
    Council and Commission if it subsequently transpires that
    the conditions to be fulfilled under Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 for the making of an offer of compensation were                   Removal from the register of Case C-371/96 (1)
    in whole or in part not met, or if the conditions for the
    making of an offer of compensation are met only because                                    (1999/C 121/30)
    the competent national authorities consider that they are
    precluded for reasons of the protection of legitimate              By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    expectations from annulling the definitive allocation of a         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    special reference quantity which is a precondition for             from the register of Case C-371/96 (reference for a preliminary
    granting compensation.                                             ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                       v. Cotonificio del Trentino SpA.
(1) OJ L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.


title: Case T-538/14: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Multiprop — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2016 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)
   (Case T-538/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Multiprop - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 136/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and A. Bognár, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, and subsequently S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 1661/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Multiprop as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case T-343/08: Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Arkema France v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/44

         Action brought on 19 August 2008 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Case T-343/08)
   (2008/C 285/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and H. Kanellopolous, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

               —

               In the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by sharing sales volumes, by fixing prices, by exchanging commercially sensitive information on prices and sales volumes and by monitoring the execution of those anticompetitive arrangements on the market for sodium chlorate in the European Economic Area.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of the rules concerning the responsibility of a parent company for offences committed by a subsidiary, inasmuch as the Commission committed errors of fact by asserting that Elf Aquitaine had a decisive influence on the applicant's commercial policy;

               —

               an infringement of the applicant's rights of defence and of the principles of proportionality, non bis in idem, equality of treatment and of sound administration, since the basic amount of the fine payable by the applicant was increased by 90 % on the ground of recidivism;

               —

               an underestimate of the value of the information provided by the applicant pursuant to the Leniency Notice of 2002 (1), inasmuch as the applicant should have received a reduction of the fine of between 30 and 50 %; and

               —

               errors of law and of fact and an infringement of the principles of sound administration, proportionality and equality of treatment, since the Commission did not grant the applicant a reduction of the fine on the basis of its cooperation in the administrative procedure.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case C-102/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/20

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-102/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)
   (2006/C 326/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria is pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.04.2006.


title: Case C-51/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH
   (Case C-51/11) (1)

   2013/C 38/25
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-120/08: Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Arch Chemicals Inc. and Others v Commission

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/34

         Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Arch Chemicals Inc. and Others v Commission
   (Case T-120/08)
   (2008/C 128/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, United States), Arch Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, United Kingdom), Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany), Rhodia UK Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom), Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and Troy Chemical Company BV (Maassluis, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to declare the present application admissible and well founded, or, in the alternative, to join the questions of admissibility to the examination of the substance, or, in the alternative, to reserve its decision on standing until judgment in the main proceedings;

               —

               to order the annulment of Article 3(2) (and Annex II), Article 4, Article 7(3), Article 14(2), second paragraph, Article 15(3) and Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

               —

               to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicants of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

               —

               to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicants of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products;

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (1) (hereinafter ‘the second review regulation’ of ‘SRR’) and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 (2), on the grounds that the contested provisions:

               (i)

               maintain the letter and/or the content of provisions originally introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 and previously challenged by the applicants (Cases T-75/04 to T-79/04) into the ongoing review of substances in a way which adversely affects their rights and legitimate expectations under Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (hereinafter ‘the BDP’) (3);

               (ii)

               are contradictory in themselves and at odds with the BPD, and

               (iii)

               violate provisions of the EC Treaty and a series of high-ranking principles of EC law such as the principle of undistorted competition, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination, as well as the right to property and freedom to pursue a trade.

         Moreover, the applicants claim that as participants in the second review regulation, they are entitled to benefit from procedural guarantees and data protection rights (i.e. exclusive use) for the data in their notifications and complete dossiers in all Member States in accordance with Article 12 of the BPD. However, according to the applicants, Article 4 of the SRR, by not requiring Member States to cancel biocidal product registrations corresponding to the applicants' notified active substance/product type combinations held by competing companies which do not participate in the review and have no access to the data submitted by the applicants for the purposes of the review, de jure and de facto violates the exclusive use right granted to the applicants by Article 12 of the BPD. In addition, the applicants submit that the defendant misused the powers entrusted upon it by the basic BPD, by deliberately implementing the BPD in a way which goes beyond the text of it and upsets the applicants' rights and expectations. Further, it is submitted that the contested measure violates EC Treaty provisions on fair competition by allowing companies which do not participate in the review and do not bear investment costs to remain on the market and regain a competitive advantage over the applicants.
   The applicants finally raise a plea of illegality against Article 6(2) of the FRR and Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of the BPD.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 325, p. 3.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1.


title: Case C-433/07: Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Action brought on 18 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-433/07)
   (2007/C 269/64)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and M. Telles Româo, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/30/EC (1) of 22 April 2005 amending, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Directives 97/24/EC and 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 17 May 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 106, p. 17.


title: Case T-112/07: Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Hitachi and Others v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 17 April 2007 — Hitachi and Others v Commission
   (Case T-112/07)
   (2007/C 129/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Hitachi Ltd (Tokyo, Japan), Hitachi Europe Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom), Japan AE Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Reynolds, P. Mansfield and D. Arts, laywers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants respectfully request the Court:

               —

               to annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns each of them;

               —

               as a consequence, to cancel the fines imposed on each of them;

               —

               in the alternative, to annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it concerns each of them, or, at least to cancel or reduce the fines imposed on each of them;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants lodged an action for annulment, under Articles 225 and 230 EC against Commission decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — C(2006) 6762 final), on the basis of which the Commission found the applicants, among other undertakings, liable to have infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in the gas insulated switchgear sector (hereinafter ‘GIS’), through a set of agreements and concerted practices consisting of (a) market sharing, (b) the allocation of quotas and maintenance of the respective market shares, (c) the allocation of individual GIS projects (bid-rigging) to designated producers and the manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, (d) price fixing, (e) agreements to cease licence agreements with non-cartel members and (f) exchanges of sensitive market information. In the alternative, the applicants apply, on the basis of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), for cancellation or reduction of the fines imposed on each of them.
   The grounds on which the applicants rely may be summarised as follows. The applicants submit that the Commission has breached the fundamental rules on protection of the rights of defence, Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and Article 81 EC, as well as the general principles of Community law in the following respects:
   First, it is submitted that the Commission violated the applicant's rights of defence through its failure to grant access to certain allegedly inculpatory evidence as well as to certain potentially exculpatory documents.
   Second, the applicants claim that the Commission has failed to prove the existence of an infringement of Article 81(1) EC to the legal standard required by Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003. In this respect, the applicants submit in particular that the Commission has failed to prove the existence of a common understanding between the European and Japanese undertakings concerned in the manner alleged in the decision, or that any common understanding constituted a restrictive agreement and/or restrictive practice.
   Third, the applicants contend that the Commission failed to prove that the applicants took part in a single and continuous infringement.
   Fourth, the Commission has allegedly committed manifest errors in its assessment of the fines imposed on the applicants by failing to assess the specific weight of the alleged infringement committed by the applicants.
   Fifth, according to the applicants, the Commission has committed a manifest error by failing to take into account factors relating to duration when assessing the applicants' fines.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the method used by the Commission for assessing the fines with regard to the deterrent multiplier violates the general Community law principles of equal treatment and proportionality, both as to the risk that the applicants could cause any significant damage on the European market and so as to the non taking into account of recidivism.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1-25).


title: Case T-373/08: Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/50

         Action brought on 3 September 2008 — Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission
   (Case T-373/08)
   (2008/C 285/90)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: M.A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should order the defendant to pay it:

               —

               EUR 1 447 249,00, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the loss of income in the normal management of the undertaking in the financial year ending 30 June 2003 compared with the income it would have had if the investment programme had been completed, revalued from 1 July 2003 until the date of judgment; and

               —

               EUR 1 432 497,00, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the loss of income in the normal management of the undertaking in the financial year ending 30 June 2004 compared with the income it would have had if the investment programme had been completed, revalued from 1 July 2004 until the date of judgment; and

               —

               EUR 2 009 197,00, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the loss of income in the normal management of the undertaking in the financial year ending 30 June 2005 compared with the income it would have had if the investment programme had been completed, revalued from 1 July 2005 until the date of judgment; and

               —

               EUR 1 830 564,00, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the loss of income in the normal management of the undertaking in the financial year ending 30 June 2006 compared with the income it would have had if the investment programme had been completed, revalued from 1 July 2006 until the date of judgment; and

               —

               EUR 1 947 081,00, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the loss of income in the normal management of the undertaking in the financial year ending 30 June 2007 compared with the income it would have had if the investment programme had been completed, revalued from 1 July 2007 until the date of judgment;

               —

               interest on the sums as revalued, calculated from the date of judgment until satisfied in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus the number of percentage points considered by the Court to be just, which, in the applicant's view, should be not fewer than two; and

               —

               the costs of the proceedings, including those of the party's technical consultancy for 2008.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This present action is the natural continuation of the action in Case T-362/05, in which the applicant sought, inter alia, an order that the Commission pay it compensation for loss of profit, consisting of the difference between the income from normal management recorded in balance sheets drawn up on 30 June 2003 and, subsequently, on 30 June 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and the income that would have been obtained from normal management if the projected investment funds had been paid in full.
   By the present action, the applicant charges the Commission with the same (or virtually the same) unlawful acts previously alleged in Case T-362/05. The same complaints concerning the acts and conduct of the defendant are also set out in this application, but take account of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment delivered on 15 April 2008 in Case C-390/06 P Nuova Agricast v Commission.


title: Case F-7/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 July 2007 — B v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions in Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 July 2007 — B v Commission
   (Case F-7/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions in Article 4(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 211/107)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: B (Brussels, Belgium) (initially represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, then by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — Annulment of the appointing authority's decision of 10 October 2005 rejecting the complaint of the applicant together with the appointing authority's decision of 26 April 2005 to refuse to pay the applicant an expatriation allowance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 35.


title: Case C-414/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2014  — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM — Opposition brought by the proprietor of earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/9

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2014 — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-414/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM - Opposition brought by the proprietor of earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart))
   2014/C 261/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Geitz, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Anna Klusmeier (represented by: G. Schmitt-Gaedke, Rechtanswalt)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-383/17: Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/28

         Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-383/17)
   (2017/C 277/41)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and L. Nicolae, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to provide the Commission with any report of the results of the monitoring of every recognised organisation acting on its behalf, the Portuguese Republic fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of Directive 2009/15/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 9(2) of the Directive clearly lays down that each Member State must, at least on a biennial basis, monitor every recognised organisation acting on its behalf and provide the other Member States and the Commission with a report on the results of such monitoring activities at the latest by 31 March of the year following the year in which the monitoring was carried out.
   Since the time limit for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 17 June 2011 in accordance with Article 13(1) of that directive, the Portuguese Republic ought to have provided the first report by 31 March 2013 at the latest, as it could have opted to carry out the first monitoring during 2011 or 2012.
   It is now June 2017 and the Portuguese Republic has still not provided a report.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 131, p. 47.


title: Case T-181/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Tay Za v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Myanmar — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial review — Right to respect for property — Proportionality)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Tay Za v Council
   (Case T-181/08) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Myanmar - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial review - Right to respect for property - Proportionality)
   2010/C 179/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (Yangon, Myanmar) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, and subsequently by I. Rao, acting as Agent, and by D. Beard, Barrister); and European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, P. Aalto and S. Boelaert, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name appears on the list of persons, entities or bodies to which the regulation applies.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders Pye Phyo Tay Za to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case F-119/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Di Tullio v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Leave for national service — Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Professional soldier — Completion of a period of territorial command — Refusal)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Di Tullio v Commission
   (Case F-119/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Professional soldier - Completion of a period of territorial command - Refusal)
   2012/C 138/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of OLAF’s services refusing to grant the applicant leave for national service pursuant to Article 18 CEOS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Di Tullio’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Di Tullio to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 66.


title: Case C-32/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia n °2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA (Directive 1999/44/EC — Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product — Minor nature of that lack of conformity — Rescission of the contract not possible — Powers of the national courts)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA
   (Case C-32/12) (1)

   (Directive 1999/44/EC - Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product - Minor nature of that lack of conformity - Rescission of the contract not possible - Powers of the national courts)
   2013/C 344/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

      Defendants: Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Badajoz — Interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Rights of the consumer — Product with a minor lack of conformity — No repair of that product — Application for rescission of the sale — Not permissible — No alternative claim seeking an appropriate reduction in the price — Whether a national court can consider of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the national court hearing the dispute to grant of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price of goods which are the subject of a contract of sale in the case where a consumer who is entitled to such a reduction brings proceedings which are limited to seeking only rescission of that contract and such rescission cannot be granted because the lack of conformity in those goods is minor, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case C-101/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2011 by Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/13

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2011 by Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel
   (Case C-101/11 P)
   2011/C 130/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Míguez Pereira, abogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09;

               —

               declare Community design No 000 426 895-0002 invalid;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh ruling on the merits;

               —

               order José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. to pay the costs incurred at first instance and, should it be granted leave to intervene in the appeal in its capacity as proprietor of the industrial design in respect of which invalidity proceedings have been brought, the costs of the present appeal proceedings as well.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               (a)

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 (1) and related provisions.
               Error by the General Court in declaring that the overall impression made by the disputed design on informed users is different from that made by the earlier design relied on in support of the application for invalidity.

               (b)

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 and related provisions.
               Omission and error on the part of the General Court in the assessment and application of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.

               (c)

               Error on the part of the General Court in failing to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal.
               Failure by the General Court, in delivering the judgment under appeal, to state reasons and to provide justification; and exceeding of its jurisdiction.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 February 2001 in Case C-205/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo, Spain): Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others v Administración General del Estado (Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage — Conditions for the grant and continuation of prior administrative authorisation — Concurrent application of the methods of imposing public service obligations and of concluding public service contracts)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 173/9
In order to determine whether a person is a national of the United         1.   The combined provisions of Article 1 and Article 4 of Council
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the purposes of               Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
Community law, it is necessary to refer to the 1982 Declaration by              the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       within Member States (maritime cabotage) permit the provision
Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’ which                of regular maritime cabotage services to, from and between
replaced the 1972 Declaration by the Government of the United                   islands to be made subject to prior administrative authorisation
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of              only if:
the term ‘nationals’, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European                   —     a real public service need arising from the inadequacy of
Communities.                                                                          the regular transport services under conditions of free
                                                                                competition can be demonstrated;
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                —     it is also demonstrated that that prior administrative
                                                                                authorisation scheme is necessary and proportionate to
                                                                                the aim pursued;
                                                                                —     such a scheme is based on objective, non-discriminatory
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                criteria which are known in advance to the undertakings
                                                                                concerned.
                        of 20 February 2001
in Case C-205/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo, Spain): Asociación Profesional de
Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (Analir) and                        2.   Community law permits a Member State to include in the
       Others v Administración General del Estado (1)                          conditions for granting and maintaining prior administrative
                                                                                authorisation as a means of imposing public service obligations
                                                                                on a Community shipowner a condition enabling account to be
(Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage —
                                                                                taken of his solvency, such as the requirement that he have no
Conditions for the grant and continuation of prior adminis-
                                                                                outstanding tax or social security debts, thus giving the Member
trative authorisation — Concurrent application of the
                                                                                State the opportunity to check the shipowner’s ‘capacity to
methods of imposing public service obligations and of
                                                                                provide the service’, provided that such a condition is applied on
               concluding public service contracts)
                                                                                a non-discriminatory basis.
                           (2001/C 173/14)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           3.   Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                permitting a Member State to impose public service obligations
                                                                                on some shipping companies and, at the same time, to conclude
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                public service contracts within the meaning of Article 2(3) of
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the regulation with others for the same line or route in order to
                                                                                ensure the same regular traffic to, from or between islands,
In Case C-205/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                      provided that a real public service need can be demonstrated
EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Spain, for a                      and in so far as that application of the two methods concurrently
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       is on a non-discriminatory basis and is justified in relation to
court between Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras                      the public-interest objective pursued.
de Lı́neas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración
General del Estado — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2
and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December
1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage)
(OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet (Presi-
dents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, L. Sevón,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February 2001, in
which it has ruled: