title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by orders of that court of 20 January 1998, in the cases of (1) Questore (senior police official), Macerata v. Claudio Peroni, (2) Questore, Genoa v. Eliana Fasciolo, (3) Questore, Genoa v. Umberto Merlo, (4) Questore, Catanzaro v. Patrizia Caffarelli, (5) Questore, Milan v. Chiara Picerno, (6) Questore, Imperia v. Gianluca Barrese, Andrea De Sanctis and SaS Riviera, (7) Questore, Pavia v. Giovanni Giacchetto and (8) Questore, Savona v. Francesco Amato (Case C-86/98 to C-93/98)

text:
C 209/16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
    Exemptions from the one-month delay                                  an aid measure which the Commission has held to be
    r u l e f o r t h e d e d u c t i o n o f VAT f r o m                incompatible with the common market, it may itself,
    1 January 1989 onwards                                               in accordance with the fundamental principles of
                                                                         Community law, take this into account in order to
    The French Government points out that this measure                   waive reimbursement of the measure in question.
    enabled the PMU to deduct VAT paid on its
    purchases by reference to the month when those                  (1) OJ C 90, 26.3.1994, p. 23.
    purchases were made and not the following month,
    as would have been the normal rule.
    Since its inception in 1969, that cash-flow facility
    was offset, however, by the lodging of a permanent
    non-interest-bearing deposit with the Treasury.
                                                                    References for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
                                                                    Stato (Council of State) by orders of that court of
    It is true, as the Court of First Instance observed, that
                                                                    20 January 1998, in the cases of (1) Questore (senior
    the Commission made a factual error in its decision
                                                                    police official), Macerata v. Claudio Peroni, (2) Questore,
    in so far as it stated that the Treasury deposit had
                                                                    Genoa v. Eliana Fasciolo, (3) Questore, Genoa v. Umberto
    only existed since 1989.
                                                                    Merlo, (4) Questore, Catanzaro v. Patrizia Caffarelli, (5)
                                                                    Questore, Milan v. Chiara Picerno, (6) Questore, Imperia
    The Commission considered that the measure at issue
                                                                    v. Gianluca Barrese, Andrea De Sanctis and SaS Riviera,
    constituted a State aid, compatible with the common
                                                                    (7) Questore, Pavia v. Giovanni Giacchetto and (8)
    market before 1989 by reason of the fact that any
                                                                               Questore, Savona v. Francesco Amato
    disturbance thereby caused to the common market
    was negligible. After 1 January 1989, by reason of                                (Case C-86/98 to C-93/98)
    the existence of the compensatory deposit with the                                       (98/C 209/30)
    Treasury, the Commission took the view that it no
    longer constituted State aid.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    The Court of First Instance annulled the                        European Communities by orders of the Consiglio di Stato
    Commission's assessment regarding the period after              of 20 January 1998, which were received at the Court
    1 January 1989 on the basis of factors essentially              Registry on 13 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    related to the preceding period and the mere finding            the cases of (1) Questore, Macerata v. Claudio Peroni,
    that the compensation for the year 1989 had been                (2) Questore, Genoa v. Eliana Fasciolo, (3) Questore,
    inadequate.                                                     Genoa v. Umberto Merlo, (4) Questore, Catanzaro v.
                                                                    Patrizia Caffarelli, (5) Questore, Milan v. Chiara Picerno,
    However, the Court of First Instance could not rely             (6) Questore, Imperia v. Gianluca Barrese, Andrea De
    solely on those factors in order to infer that the              Sanctis and SaS Riviera, (7) Questore, Pavia v. Giovanni
    Commission's assessment in respect of the entire                Giacchetto and (8) Questore, Savona v. Francesco Amato
    period after 1 January 1989 was erroneous. In this              on the following question:
    respect also the judgment of the Court of First
    Instance is vitiated by flawed reasoning and by an              Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
    inadequate statement of grounds.                                preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                    view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
(B) Recovery of aid which is incompatible with the                  prevent fraud that justify it?
    common market
    Since the Commission found in its Decision that the
    PMU's exemption from the housing levy as from
    1989 was incompatible with the Treaty, but that the
    recipient was required to repay amounts involved
    only with effect from the date when the procedure               Action brought on 7 April 1998 by the Republic of
    was opened in 1991, by reason of the fact that it                     Austria against the Commission of the European
    could legitimately have entertained expectations                                          Communities
    based on the earlier decision of the Conseil d'EÂtat,                                   (Case C-99/98)
    the Court of First Instance essentially held that the                                    (98/C 209/31)
    Commission could not itself take into account the
    recipient's legitimate expectations, as relied upon by
    the Member State, in order to dismiss the                       An action against the Commission of the European
    requirement to repay aid which it deemed                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
    incompatible with the common market.                            the European Communities on 7 April 1998 by the
                                                                    Republic of Austria, represented by Dr. Wolf Okresek,
    The French Government believes that the judgment                Head of Section, Director of the Constitutional Section of
    of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated in this         the Office of the Federal Chancellor of the Republic of
    respect by an error of law and that when the                    Austria, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    Commission is advised by a Member State of                      office of Dr. Josef Magerl, Ambassador, Austrian Embassy,
    legitimate expectations on the part of the recipient of         3 Rue des Bains.


title: Case C-33/00: Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium

text:
18.3.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/19
     of a List II disease on an approved farm or in an approved         Action brought on 27 January 2000 by the Commission
     zone, a Member State adopts a domestic measure the                         of the European Communities against Ireland
     application of which results in the destruction and slaugh-
     ter of fish, are the principles of Community law relating to                                (Case C-22/00)
     the protection of fundamental rights in particular the right
     of property, to be interpreted as having placed on a
     Member State the obligation to adopt measures providing                                     (2000/C 79/37)
     for the payment of compensation
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     (a) to an owner of fish which are destroyed; and                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2000 by
     (b) to an owner of fish which are required to be slaughtered       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         immediately, thereby necessitating the immediate sale          by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
         of those fish by that owner?                                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
2. If the Member State is required to adopt such measures,              Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     what are the criteria of interpretation needed by a national
     court to determine whether the measures that are adopted           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     are compatible with the fundamental rights, in particular
     the right of property, which the Court ensures and which           — declare that, in failing to adopt all the measures to
     derive in particular from the European Convention on                    fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
     Human Rights?                                                           Directive 87/217/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to comply with
                                                                             Directive 87/217/EEC;
3. In particular, do the criteria require that the measures
     differentiate between the situation where the outbreak of
                                                                        — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     the disease was due to the fault of the owner of the fish
     concerned and the situation where the owner was not at
     fault?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing mini-
    mum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases,    Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
    OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 23.                                        a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                        on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                        laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
                                                                        1988 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                        ary to fully and correctly transpose Article 7, second indent, of
                                                                        the directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Massa, by order of 8 October 1999 in
the action pending before that court between Hamadeh                    (1) Council Directive 87/217/EEC on the prevention and reduction
                Adnan and Società Fiat Sava SpA                             of environmental pollution by asbestos (OJ L 85 of 28.3.1987, p.
                                                                            40).
                           (Case C-21/00)
                           (2000/C 79/36)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice del
Pace di Massa (Office of the Justice of the Peace, Massa) of
8 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on 24 January            Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
before it between Hamadeh Adnan and Fiat Sava SpA
                                                                                (Case C-33/00)
On the question of the validity and effect within Italian
territory of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April (1) in view                                  (2000/C 79/38)
of the Italian State’s failure to implement the directive in good
time or by 9 March 1995 when a deed of guarantee was
concluded by the defendant in the present action.                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
(1) Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95,      Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,
    p. 29.                                                              acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               from motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            — Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/90/EC of 30 November 1998 adapt-
    ing to technical progress Council Directive 70/387/EEC            Pleas in law and main arguments
    relating to the doors of motor vehicles and their trailers (1),
    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under that directive;                                             Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
                                                                      the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
                                                                      as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
                                                                      the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
                                                                      That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                      the Commission’s application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to            (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ 1998 L 337, p. 29.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-204/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/40)
                                                                      By order of 18 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-204/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                         (Case C-34/00)
                         (2000/C 79/39)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      Removal from the register of Case C-317/98 (1)
on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,                                  (2000/C 79/41)
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                            By order of 25 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-317/98 (reference for a preliminary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           ruling from Pretore di Udine, sezione distaccata di Cividale del
                                                                      Friuli): Procuratore della Repubblica v Claudio Chiarotti and
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              Antonino Chillemi.
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/77/EC of 2 October 1998 adapting             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
    to technical progress Council Directive 70/220/EEC on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
    to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions


               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Removal from the register of Opinion C-1/04 (1)

   (2005/C 69/23)
   (Languages of the case: all official languages)
   By order of 16 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Opinion C-1/04: European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-50/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/15

         Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)
   (Case T-50/14)
   2014/C 78/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 November 2013 in Case R 1254/2013-4 in respect of the goods in Class 6 (building material made of metal, ironmongery, small items of metal hardware, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods made of metal); the goods in Class 19 (building material, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods not made of metal) and the goods in Class 20 (fastening material, assembly material, screws);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TURBO DRILL’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 8, 19 and 20 — Community trade mark application No 11 695 145

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-306/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 — Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Competence of the Community — Freezing of funds — Fundamental rights — Jus cogens — Review by the Court — Action for annulment)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 — Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission
   (Case T-306/01) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Competence of the Community - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Jus cogens - Review by the Court - Action for annulment)
   (2005/C 281/31)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Ahmed Ali Yusuf (Spånga, Sweden) and Al Barakaat International Foundation (represented by: L. Silbersky and T. Olsson, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos, I. Rådestad, E. Karlsson and M. Bishop, Agents,)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (originally represented by J. Collins, and then by R. Caudwell, Agents, and by S. Moore, Barrister)
   Application
   originally, for annulment of, first, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1) and, second, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November 2001 amending, for the fourth time, Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16) and, subsequently, for an application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation No 467/2001 (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9),
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 and for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November 2001 amending, for the fourth time, Regulation No 467/2001;

               2)

               Dismisses the action in so far as it is brought against Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, and repealing Regulation No 467/2001;

               3)

               Orders the applicants to bear, in addition to their own costs, those of the Council and those incurred by the Commission until 10 July 2002, including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings;

               4)

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commission for the period after 10 July 2002, to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.


title: By orders of 8 June 2004, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, pursuant to Article 2 of Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, referred the cases listed in the left-hand column of the table below to the Court of First Instance.

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/11

         By orders of 8 June 2004, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, pursuant to Article 2 of Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, (1) referred the cases listed in the left-hand column of the table below to the Court of First Instance.
   (2004/C 239/23)
   The cases have been registered at the Court of First Instance under the numbers shown in the right-hand column below.

               Number of case referred by the Court of Justice

               Names of the parties

               Notice of registration of the case published in the Official Journal

               Number of registration at the Court of First Instance

               OJ

               of

               C-197/01

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 227

               11.8.2001

               T-216/04

               C-325/01

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 303

               27.10.2001

               T-217/04

               C-368/01

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 331

               24.11.2001

               T-218/04

               C-407/01

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 369

               22.12.2001

               T-227/04

               C-290/02

               Italy v Commission

               C 233

               28.9.2002

               T-222/04

               C-314/02

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 247

               12.10.2002

               T-228/04

               C-280/03

               Commission v Lior and Others

               C 213

               6.9.2003

               T-245/04

               C-388/03

               Netherlands/Commission

               C 275

               15.11.2003

               T-233/04

               C-401/03

               Italy v Commission

               C 304

               13.12.2003

               T-223/04

               C-430/03

               Italy v Commission

               C 304

               13.12.2003

               T-224/04

               C-455/03

               France v Commission

               C 304

               13.12.2003

               T-240/04

               C-464/03

               Spain v Commission

               C 7

               10.1.2004

               T-219/04

               C-492/03

               Austria v Commission

               C 21

               24.1.2004

               T-235/04

               C-60/04

               Italy v Commission

               C 106

               30.4.2004

               T-225/04

               C-102/04

               Sweden v Commission

               C 106

               30.4.2004

               T-229/04

               C-103/04

               Netherlands v Commission

               C 94

               17.4.2004

               T-234/04

               C-162/04

               Finland v Commission

               C 146

               29.5.2004

               T-230/04

               C-175/04

               Spain v Commission

               C 146

               29.5.2004

               T-220/04

               C-176/04

               Belgium v Commission

               C 118

               30.4.2004

               T-221/04

               C-189/04

               Greece v Commission

               C 179

               10.7.2004

               T-231/04

               C-211/04

               Italy v Commission

               C 179

               10.7.2004

               T-226/04

               C-218/04

               Greece v Commission

               C 179

               10.7.2004

               T-232/04

      (1)  OJ L 132 of 29.4.2004.


title: Case C-542/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung (Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Special length-of-service increment for university professors provided for by national legislation held to be incompatible with Community law by a judgment of the Court — Limitation period — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung
   (Case C-542/08) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Special length-of-service increment for university professors provided for by national legislation held to be incompatible with Community law by a judgment of the Court - Limitation period - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2010/C 148/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Friedrich G. Barth

      Defendant: Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interepretation of Art. 39 EC and Art. 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — National legislation providing for a special length-of-service increment for university professors, the incompatibility of which with Community law, in its earlier version, was established in Case C-224/01 Köbler — Amended legislation which, by suspending the time-limit for taking advantage of the rights at issue only as from the date of that Court judgment, disadvantages professors who were deprived of that increment by reason of the previous legislation incompatible with Community law

      Operative part of the judgment

   European Union law does not preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings making claims for payment of special length-of-service increments — which a worker who had exercised his rights to freedom of movement was denied prior to the delivery of the judgment of 30 September 2003 in Case C-224/01 Köbler, on the basis of a domestic law incompatible with Community law — subject to a three-year limitation rule.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-775/16: Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo "Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Representation of a crayfish)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/24

         Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo "Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Representation of a crayfish)
   (Case T-775/16)
   (2016/C 475/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo "Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joint-Stock Company ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union No 1 191 921

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2419/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-200/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, now Serviciul Fiscal Municipal Mediaş, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of sincere cooperation — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment of taxes improperly levied with interest — Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the Union — Refund payable over a period of five years — Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax — No possibility of enforcement)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu — Romania) — Silvia Georgiana Câmpean v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, now Serviciul Fiscal Municipal Mediaş, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-200/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment of taxes improperly levied with interest - Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the Union - Refund payable over a period of five years - Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax - No possibility of enforcement))
   (2016/C 335/03)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silvia Georgiana Câmpean

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș, now Serviciul Fiscal Municipal Mediaş, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or whose incompatibility with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such a repayment; it is for the referring court to determine whether that principle has been complied with in the present case.
   The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing procedural rules which are less favourable for applications for the repayment of a tax based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the referring court to make the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it.
   The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment with interest of taxes levied in breach of EU law, the amount of which was established by enforceable judicial decisions, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the repayment of such taxes by instalments over five years and which makes the execution of such decisions contingent on the availability of funds received in respect of another tax, without the individual having the right to compel public authorities to fulfil their obligations if they do not do so voluntarily. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether legislation such as that which would be applicable in the case at issue in the main proceedings in the absence of such a system of repayment meets the requirements of the principle of effectiveness.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 2002 in Case C-498/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Town & County Factors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Competition whose organiser binds himself in honour only — Taxable amount)

text:
C 274/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
the legislation of the Member State of residence for the award of such      composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
benefits are not or are no longer satisfied and where the entitlement       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
of the pensioner or of the orphans claiming under the deceased worker       J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
is not acquired, in the other Member State, solely under the legislation    Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
of that State. None the less, in such a situation, the competent            trator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2002,
institution of the Member State other than that of residence may be         in which it has ruled:
required to award the benefit at issue under a social-security
convention entered into by the two Member States concerned and
                                                                            1.    Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
incorporated in their national law prior to the entry into force of the
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Regulation, where the persons concerned have an established right to
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
continued application of that convention after the entry into force of
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as
the Regulation.
                                                                                meaning that a supply of services which is effected for
                                                                                consideration but is not based on enforceable obligations,
                                                                                because it has been agreed that the provider is bound in honour
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                       only to provide the services, constitutes a transaction subject to
                                                                                value added tax.
                                                                            2.    Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be
                                                                                interpreted as meaning that the full amount of the entry fees
                                                                                received by the organiser of a competition constitutes the taxable
                                                                                amount for that competition where the organiser has that
                                                                                amount freely at his disposal.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 17 September 2002                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
in Case C-498/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Town &
County Factors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and                           in Case C-513/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                               Excise ( 1)                                  the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Concordia Bus Finland Oy
                                                                                Ab v Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-Bussiliikenne (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Competition whose                            (Public service contracts in the transport sector — Directives
 organiser binds himself in honour only — Taxable amount)                   92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Contracting municipality
                                                                            which organises bus transport services and an economically
                                                                            independent entity of which participates in the tender
                           (2002/C 274/05)                                  procedure as a tenderer — Taking into account of criteria
                                                                            relating to the protection of the environment to determine
                                                                            the economically most advantageous tender — Whether
                     (Language of the case: English)                        permissible when the municipal entity which is tendering
                                                                                meets those criteria more easily)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/06)
In Case C-498/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United
Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that tribunal between Town & County Factors Ltd and                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the interpretation                                      in the European Court Reports)
of Articles 2(1), 6(1) and 11A(1) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  In Case C-513/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary


title: Case C-58/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Improvement of port security — Directive 2005/65/EC — Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 — Infringement — No assessment of port security — Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers — No definition)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-58/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Improvement of port security - Directive 2005/65/EC - Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 - Infringement - No assessment of port security - Port boundaries, port security assessments and port security officers - No definition))
   (2017/C 168/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to ensure that, for the German ports of Düsseldorf, Köln-Niehl I, Godorf, Duisburg-Rheinhausen, Neuss, Duisburg Außen-/Parallelhafen, Krefeld-Linn, Stromhafen Krefeld, Duisburg Ruhrort-Meiderich, Gelsenkirchen and Mülheim, in the Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), the boundaries of each port are defined, port security assessments and port security plans are carried out, and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-301/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Articles 2 and 3 — Rights of reproduction and communication to the public — Scope — ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published — National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes — Legal presumption of the authors’ consent — Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Marc Soulier, Sara Doke v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication
   (Case C-301/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Articles 2 and 3 - Rights of reproduction and communication to the public - Scope - ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published - National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes - Legal presumption of the authors’ consent - Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed))
   (2017/C 014/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Soulier, Sara Doke

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

      Intervening parties: Société française des intérêts des auteurs de l’écrit (SOFIA), Joëlle Wintrebert and Others

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(a) and Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that gives an approved collecting society the right to authorise the reproduction and communication to the public in digital form of ‘out-of-print’ books, namely, books published in France before 1 January 2001 which are no longer commercially distributed by a publisher and are not currently published in print or in digital form, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that that legislation lays down.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-118/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2002-2006) — Contract concerning the Personal project — Suspension of payments — Irregularities found in audits relating to other projects — Late-payment interest)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-118/12) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2002-2006) - Contract concerning the Personal project - Suspension of payments - Irregularities found in audits relating to other projects - Late-payment interest)
   2014/C 39/29
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte, acting as Agents, and S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action founded on an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 272 TFEU, seeking, firstly, a declaration from the General Court that the suspension of reimbursement of the sums advanced by the applicant in performance of the Persona contract No 045459, which was concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, contributing to the creation of a European Research and Innovation Area (2002-2006), constitutes a breach by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, an order that the Commission pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 752,74 under that project, together with interest for late payment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias the sums of which the payment was suspended on the basis of the third indent of point II.28(8) of the general conditions annexed to the contract relating to the Persona project, concluded in the context of the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, contributing to the creation of a European Research and Innovation Area (2002-2006), without such payment prejudicing the eligibility of the expenses declared by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias or the implementation of the findings of final audit report 11-BA134-011 by the Commission. The amount of the sums to be paid shall be inside the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of the suspension of the payments and those sums must be increased by late-payment interest which shall start to run, in respect of each period, on expiry of the 45-day time-limit for payment following approval of the corresponding reports by the Commission and, at the latest, 90 days from their receipt by the Commission. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force on the first day of the month in which the payment fell due, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, Series C;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case T-453/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark LAGUIOLE — Earlier French company name Forge de Laguiole — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Szajner v OHIM — Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)
   (Case T-453/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark LAGUIOLE - Earlier French company name Forge de Laguiole - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 431/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gilbert Szajner (Niort, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Forge de Laguiole SARL (Laguiole, France) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 June 2011 (Case R 181/2007-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Forge de Laguiole SARL and Mr Gilbert Szajner.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 June 2011 (Case R 181/2007-1) in so far as it declares the Community word mark LAGUIOLE invalid in respect of goods other than ‘hand tools and implements (hand operated); spoons; saws, razors, razor blades; shaving cases; nail files and nail nippers, nail-clippers; manicure sets’ in Class 8, ‘paper-cutters’ in Class 16, ‘corkscrews; bottle-openers’ and ‘shaving brushes, fitted vanity cases’ in Class 21 and ‘cigar cutters’ and ‘pipe cleaners’ in Class 34;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant and three-quarters of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Mr Gilbert Szajner to bear one quarter of the costs incurred by Forge de Laguiole, one quarter of the costs incurred by OHIM and three-quarters of his own costs;

               5.

               Orders OHIM to bear three-quarters of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-65/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/21

         Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-65/05)
   (2005/C 82/43)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by prohibiting, in Article 2(1), Article 3, second part, Article 4 and Article 5 of Law 3037/2002, the installation and operation of all electrical, electronic and electromechanical games, including recreational games of skill and all games for electronic computers, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive 98/34 EC.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission has objected to the legislative prohibition on installing and operating all electrical, electronic and electromechanical games, including recreational games of skill and all games for electronic computers, on all public or private premises apart from casinos.
   In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission considers that the above prohibition constitutes a measure restricting the free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. The Commission also points out that the Law in question was not notified to it when it was being drafted, in infringement of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 which provides for a procedure for provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and for rules concerning the services of the information society.
   The Commission also considers that the grounds cited of protecting public order and in particular the concern that recreational machines should not be converted into games of chance, with the consequence of creating a social problem, do not constitute sufficient reasons for laying down the prohibitive measures in issue, since the purpose cited could be achieved by measures that were more appropriate and proportionate and less restrictive of the above freedoms.
   In addition, according to the Commission, the need cited by the Greek authorities for laying down the measures as a matter of urgency does not justify the failure to inform the Commission, since Directive 98/34 provides for an accelerated procedure.
   The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic is in infringement of its obligations under Articles 28, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 204 of 21.07.98, p. 37.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-117/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Construction of holiday villages and hotel complexes — Failure to make a project to construct a hotel complex subject to such an assessment)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-117/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Construction of holiday villages and hotel complexes - Failure to make a project to construct a hotel complex subject to such an assessment)
   (2004/C 118/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-117/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romão and J. Lois) acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for a declaration that, by allowing consent to be given to a planned tourism complex including residential units, hotels and golf courses, located in the area of Ponta do Abano, without an assessment of the effects of that project on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.


title: Case C-332/09 P: Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE — Invalidity proceedings — Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/19

         Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH
   (Case C-332/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE - Invalidity proceedings - Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity)
   2010/C 234/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Frosch Touristik GmbH (represented by: H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt), DSR touristik GmbH

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 dismissing the appeal by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring that mark partially invalid — Determination of the material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity in invalidity proceedings

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-9/01: Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker against the European Court of Auditors

text:
24.3.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/17
—    Error of fact and absolute lack of statement of reasons.           —     condemn the Commission to pay damages provisionally
     First, the need to involve consumer organisations was not                evaluated at 1 Euro for the prejudice suffered;
     provided for in the invitation to tender and, secondly,
     evidence of the requisite experience had been submitted.           —     condemn the Commission to pay the costs.
—    Internal inconsistency of the decision and misuse of
     powers. In a communication dated 14 September 2000,                Pleas in law and main arguments
     sent by the Commission to the participants in the
     tendering procedure, it was stated that not only had the
                                                                        The applicant entered into a three-year contract of employ-
     applicant consortium’s offer been selected, that is to say
                                                                        ment with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts
     its tender been accepted, it had also been awarded the             of Employment (AECCE), which contract was renewable for a
     contract in which it was interested.
                                                                        further year.
—    Breach of the terms of the tender and invalidity on                Despite allegedly favourable opinions expressed in the appli-
     grounds of incompetence. The applicants state in this              cant’s last performance report, the AECCE decided only to
     respect that the Director General who signed the contest-          extend the applicant’s contract for six months.
     ed decision was not, under the terms of the tender, the
     person competent to carry out all the communications
     relating to the tendering procedure and to adopt the               The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision and submits
     relevant measures, and that the contested letter confuses          that the AECCE’s decision violated the obligation to state
     selection criteria, for the purposes of participating in the       reasons contained in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. As all
     tendering procedure, and grounds for exclusion from the            three-year contracts of temporary staff were allegedly extended,
     tendering procedure itself.                                        except for the one of the applicant, a limit of six months
                                                                        for the extension of the applicant’s contract constitutes an
                                                                        infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and goes
                                                                        clearly against the interest of the service.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the decision infringes
                                                                        Article 26 of the Staff Regulation and violates his rights to
                                                                        defence, and that it constitutes a misuse of powers.
Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-7/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker
                                                                                against the European Court of Auditors
                         (2001/C 95/33)
                                                                                (Case T-9/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/34)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                (Language of the case: German)
European Communities on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
(Swan Residence, rue Ph. Baucq, 100, Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of De Backer, Brussels.            An action against the European Court of Auditors was brought
                                                                        before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker, of Luxembourg,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             represented by Roy Nathan, lawyer.
—    annul the decision of the Commission of 22 January                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
     2000 extending the Appellant’s contract of employment
     only until 30 July 2000, so for a further period limited to        —     order the defendant to withdraw its decision of 13 No-
     six months, and, if necessary, annul the decision of the                 vember 2000;
     Commission of 6 October 2000 rejecting the Appellant’s
     complaint;                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant was injured in two serious road-traffic accidents.
Following his initial treatment, the applicant applied for unpaid         The present action is directed against the decision of 28 Sep-
leave; that application was granted pursuant to Article 40 of             tember 2000, by which the authority competent to conclude
the Staff Regulations, initially for a period of one year.                staff contracts rejected the applicant’s complaint lodged under
                                                                          No 166/2000, seeking confirmation that her employment
                                                                          relationship with the Commission was for an indefinite period
Whilst on leave, the applicant applied to be retired on health            under a temporary staff contract pursuant to Article 2(d) of
grounds. The defendant refused that application, since the                the Conditions of Employment of other Servants (CES).
applicant had at his own request been granted leave on
personal grounds, and could not therefore show that he was
performing the duties corresponding to a post.
                                                                          The applicant points out in this respect that she was engaged
                                                                          by the defendant on 16 October 1996 as a member of the
The applicant asserts that the question as to whether or not              auxiliary staff. Subsequently, the applicant and the Commission
the criteria laid down by Article 78 of the Staff Regulations are         agreed to add a clause providing for the extension of the
fulfilled is to be determined on the basis of expert medical              contract until 15 October 2000, giving a total duration of
reports, and that the determination of that question cannot               3 years. The contract was not subsequently renewed.
depend on whether the applicant was, at the relevant time, on
leave on personal grounds. Consequently, the defendant is
wrong to believe that it has any margin of discretion as regards
the carrying- out an administrative/technical assessment of the           According to the applicant, the Commission’s intention of not
circumstances.                                                            offering employment relationships to temporary agents in
                                                                          excess of 3 years is evident from the fact that the Commission
                                                                          chose to abolish posts in respect of which it had published
                                                                          vacancy notices and for which the applicant herself had
                                                                          applied.
                                                                          In support of her arguments, the applicant alleges:
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Catherine Mascetti                   —     Breach of the principle of good administration and
    against Commission of the European Communities                              infringement of Articles 3 and 5 of the CES for having
                                                                                unlawfully classified the applicant as an auxiliary agent.
                          (Case T-11/01)
                                                                          —     Infringement of Articles 8 et seq. and 47 of the CES.
                         (2001/C 95/35)
                                                                          —     Infringement of the decision of the Commission of
                                                                                19 January 1996 on a New Policy for Research Staff
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              (NPRS).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 —     Breach of the principles of legality and of legitimate
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      expectations.
European Communities on 22 January 2001 by Catherine
Mascetti, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Massimo
Condinanzi, Avvocati, with an address for service in Luxem-               —     Unlawfulness of the NPRS as contrary to the CES and to
bourg.                                                                          the principle of non-discrimination.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     Unlawfulness of the NPRS for failure to consult the Staff
                                                                                Regulations Committee.
—      Annul the decision of the Commission of 28 September
       2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
       28 March 2000 under No 166/2000;
—      Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-365/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) and Others v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) and Others v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-365/16)
   (2016/C 335/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin, Danone, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company, Technip, Total SA, Vivendi, Eurazeo, Safran, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace

      Defendant: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011, (1) and in particular paragraph 1(a) thereof, preclude a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code, which is payable on the distribution of profits by parent companies that are liable to corporation tax in France and is assessed on the basis of the sums distributed?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code to be regarded as a ‘withholding tax’ from which, pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, profits distributed by a subsidiary must be exempt?

      (1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8).


title: Case C-111/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 28 February 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Principado de Asturias

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 28 February 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-111/07)
   (2007/C 95/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

      Defendant: Principado de Asturias
   Question referred
   Should Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Decree 72/2001 of 19 July regulating Pharmacies and Pharmaceutical Dispensaries and the First Section of Chapter II of said Decree, pursuant to the provisions of Article 103 of Law 14/1986 (General Health) and of Article 88 of Law 25/1990 of 20 December (on medicinal products), be considered to be in breach of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European [Community]?


title: Case C-481/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/48

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-481/06)
   (2006/C 326/99)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001, and by means of the Joint Ministerial Decisions (DI6a/ik 38611 and DI6a/ik 38609 of 12 April 2005) implementing that provision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation flowing from Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and its obligation, as laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, to ensure effective and fair competition;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission received a complaint relating to the provision of Greek legislation which has placed all material for medical use into categories and set a specific maximum price for each category. That provision, in conjunction with the joint ministerial decisions implementing it, constitutes a legislative framework which allows the direct award of public supply contracts for whole groups of the foregoing products which are classified as not comparable.
   In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission considers that the legislative framework in question is contrary to Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and to the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition. Inasmuch as that provision is in the nature of an exception, it must be interpreted narrowly and it is not possible to allow direct awards for whole categories of products. Also, contracting authorities must make sure that effective competition is preserved and ensure transparency in the public supply field, which is not possible with direct awards, apart from the exceptional cases laid down in Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36.
   The Greek authorities did not contest the Commission's submissions or the existence of the alleged infringement and announced their intention to amend the legislative provision at issue. Nevertheless, no such amendment had been made known up until the date on which the action was brought.
   The Commission consequently considers that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36 and its obligation to ensure effective and fair competition.

      (1)  OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.


title: Case C-120/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 510/2006 — Temporal application — Article 14 — Registration in accordance with the simplified procedure — Relations between trade marks and protected geographical indications)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV
   (Case C-120/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulations (EEC) No 2081/92 and (EC) No 510/2006 - Temporal application - Article 14 - Registration in accordance with the simplified procedure - Relations between trade marks and protected geographical indications)
   2011/C 63/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bavaria NV

      Defendant: Bayerischer Brauerbund eV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(b) and Article 14(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12), and of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 2001 L 182, p. 3) — Conflict between a protected geographical indication, registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (here, ‘Bayerisches Bier’) and an international trade mark (here, a mark including the word ‘Bavaria’)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs is applicable for resolving the conflict between a name validly registered as a protected geographical indication in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of that regulation and a trade mark corresponding to one of the situations referred to in Article 13 of that regulation relating to the same type of product, the application for registration of which was submitted both before the registration of that name and before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2003 of 8 April 2003 amending Regulation No 2081/92. The date of the entry into force of the registration of that name constitutes the reference date for the purposes of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-207/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Firenze): Altair Chimica SpA v ENEL Distribuzione SpA (Competition — Dominant position — Supply of electricity — Imposition of a "sovrapprezzo")

text:
1.11.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 264/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             —      may impose penalties on the undertakings concerned in
                                                                                respect of past conduct where the conduct was merely
                                                                                facilitated or promoted by the national legislation, whilst
                         of 9 September 2003                                               taking due account of the specific features of the legislative
                                                                                framework in which the undertakings acted;
in Case C-198/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     2.    It is for the referring court to assess whether national legislation
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio):                               such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which
Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante                             competence to fix the retail selling prices of a product is
               della Concorrenza e del Mercato (1)                                  delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
                                                                                between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to which the
                                                                                relevant producers are obliged to belong, may be regarded,
(Competition law — National legislation anti-competitive                            for the purposes of Article 81(1) EC, as precluding those
— National competition authority’s power to declare such                            undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which
legislation inapplicable — Circumstances in which undertak-                         remains capable of preventing, restricting or distorting compe-
       ings not answerable for anti-competitive conduct)                            tition.
                            (2003/C 264/14)                                   (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
In Case C-198/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                             of 11 September 2003
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)                in Case C-207/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, on the                  the Corte d’appello di Firenze): Altair Chimica SpA v
interpretation of Article 81 EC, the Court, composed of:                                           ENEL Distribuzione SpA (1)
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                       (Competition — Dominant position — Supply of electricity
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                                      — Imposition of a ‘sovrapprezzo’)
V. Skouris, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September                                            (2003/C 264/15)
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Where undertakings engage in conduct contrary to Article 81(1)
      EC and where that conduct is required or facilitated by national        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      legislation which legitimises or reinforces the effects of the                                in the European Court Reports)
      conduct, specifically with regard to price-fixing or market-
      sharing arrangements, a national competition authority, one of
      whose responsibilities is to ensure that Article 81 EC is
                                                                              In Case C-207/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      observed:
                                                                              EC by the Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      —      has a duty to disapply the national legislation;                 Altair Chimica SpA and ENEL Distribuzione SpA on the
                                                                              interpretation of Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC, Council Directive
                                                                              92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements
      —      may not impose penalties in respect of past conduct on
                                                                              for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
             the undertakings concerned when the conduct was required
                                                                              movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,
             by the national legislation;
                                                                              p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 Decem-
                                                                              ber 1996 (OJ 1997 L 8, p. 12), and Council Recommendation
      —      may impose penalties on the undertakings concerned in            81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on electricity tariff structures
             respect of conduct subsequent to the decision to disapply        in the Community (OJ 1981 L 337, p. 12), the Court (Sixth
             the national legislation, once the decision has become           Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
             definitive in their regard;                                      Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/10                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              1.11.2003
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                        lishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                 and the promotion of combined transport (OJ 2001 L 108,
trar, has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it                   p. 27), but only in so far as they are based on Article 93 EC
has ruled:                                                                     and without altering their effects, which should be maintained,
                                                                               the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
Articles 81, 82 and 85 EC and Council Directive 92/12/EEC of                   teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber,
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of                  Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
such products, as amended by Council Directive 96/99/EC of                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September 2003, in
30 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do                  which it:
not preclude a national rule providing for the levy of surcharges on
the price of electricity such as those at issue in the main proceedings        1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/265/EC of 19 March 2001
when the electricity is used in an electro-chemical process and that                 concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the
Council Recommendation 81/924/EEC of 27 October 1981 on                              European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria establishing
electricity tariff structures in the Community is not capable of                     certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the
preventing a Member State from levying such surcharges.                              promotion of combined transport and 2001/266/EC of
                                                                                19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the agreement
                                                                                between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.                                                           establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road
                                                                                and the promotion of combined transport;
                                                                               2.    Declares that the effects of the decisions are to be maintained
                                                                                until the measures necessary to implement the present judgment
                                                                                have been adopted;
                                                                               3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               4.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Grand Duchy
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                          of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.
                        of 11 September 2003                                   (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
in Case C-211/01: Commission of the European Communi-
            ties v Council of the European Union (1)
(EC/Bulgaria and EC/Hungary Agreements — Carriage of                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
goods by road and combined transport — Taxation — Legal
                basis — Articles 71 EC and 93 EC)                                                     of 9 September 2003
                            (2003/C 264/16)                                    in Case C-236/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio):
                                                                               Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others v Presidenza
                      (Language of the case: French)                                       del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Regulation (EC) No 258/97 — Novel foods — Placing on
                     in the European Court Reports)                            the market — Safety assessment — Simplified procedure —
                                                                               Substantial equivalence to existing foods — Foods produced
                                                                               from genetically modified maize — Presence of residues of
                                                                               transgenic protein — Measure by a Member State tempor-
In Case C-211/01, Commission of the European Communities                       arily restricting or suspending the trade in or use of a novel
(Agent: initially by M. Wolfcarius, subsequently by W. Wils) v                                         food in its territory)
Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Lopes Sabino and
E. Karlsson) supported by Federal Republic of Germany                                                    (2003/C 264/17)
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) and by Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg (Agents: J. Falts and N. Mackel): Application
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
for the annulment of Council Decisions 2001/265/EC of
19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the agreement
between the European Community and the Republic of                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of                                      in the European Court Reports)
goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
2001 L 108, p. 4), and 2001/266/EC of 19 March 2001
concerning the conclusion of the agreement between the                         In Case C-236/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
European Community and the Republic of Hungary estab-                          EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)


title: Case C-183/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Ruma GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 8529 — Subheading 8529 90 40 — Keypad membrane for mobile telephones)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Ruma GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-183/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8529 - Subheading 8529 90 40 - Keypad membrane for mobile telephones)
   (2007/C 82/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München (Germany)
   Parties in the main proceedings

      Applicant: RUMA GmbH

      Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Heading 8538 — Mobile telephone keyboard membrane (keypad) which has non-conductive contact pins on the underside
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that keypad membranes of polycarbonate which have moulded keys on their upper side and non-conductive contact pins on their underside and are intended for incorporation into mobile telephones are covered by subheading 8529 90 40.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.