title: Case C-312/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei járásbíróság — Hungary) — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos (References for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/39/EC — Articles 4(1) and 19(4), (5) and (9) — Markets in financial instruments — Concept of ‘investment services and activities’ — Provisions to ensure investor protection — Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients — Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided — Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation — Consumer credit contracts — Foreign currency denominated loan — Advancement and reimbursement of loan in domestic currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei járásbíróság — Hungary) — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos
   (Case C-312/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Articles 4(1) and 19(4), (5) and (9) - Markets in financial instruments - Concept of ‘investment services and activities’ - Provisions to ensure investor protection - Conduct of business obligations when providing investment services to clients - Obligation to assess the suitability or appropriateness of the service to be provided - Contractual consequences of non-compliance with that obligation - Consumer credit contracts - Foreign currency denominated loan - Advancement and reimbursement of loan in domestic currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate))
   (2016/C 038/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Ráckevei járásbíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

      Defendant: Márton Lantos, Mártonné Lantos

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, an investment service or activity within the meaning of that provision does not encompass certain foreign exchange transactions, effected by a credit institution under clauses of a foreign currency denominated loan agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in fixing the amount of the loan on the basis of the purchase price of the currency applicable when the funds are advanced and in determining the amounts of the monthly instalments on the basis of the sale price of that currency applicable when each monthly instalment is calculated.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Assignment of Mr Popescu to Chambers

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/2

         Assignment of Mr Popescu to Chambers
   2010/C 346/03
   On 29 November 2010, the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, following Mr Popescu’s taking up of his duties as a Judge, to amend as follows the decision of the Plenary Meeting of 20 September 2010 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers, as amended by the decision of 26 October 2010.
   For the period from 29 November 2010 until the date on which the Bulgarian Judge takes up his/her duties, the following assignments are made:

         Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek, Mr Schwarcz and Mr Popescu, Judges.

         Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber

               (a)

               Mr Dehousse and Mr Popescu, Judges;

               (b)

               Mr Dehousse and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

               (c)

               Mr Schwarcz and Mr Popescu, Judges.

         Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

   Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek, Mr Schwarcz and Mr Popescu, Judges.


title: Case T-398/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Spain v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Spanish broadband internet access markets — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC — Price-fixing — Margin squeeze — Sincere cooperation — Ultra vires application of Article 82 EC — Legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-398/07) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish broadband internet access markets - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Price-fixing - Margin squeeze - Sincere cooperation - Ultra vires application of Article 82 EC - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations)
   2012/C 138/22
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3196 final of 4 July 2007 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 1999 in Case C-293/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment and Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte H.A. Standley and Others and D.G.D. Metson and Others (Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Identification of waters affected by pollution - Designation of vulnerable zones - Criteria - Validity in the light of the polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the principle of proportionality and the right to property)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/11
determine, in accordance with its domestic law including the rules of       2. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 3950/92 is to be understood as
private international law, the legal effects of a decision given in the          meaning that, whilst purchasers are entitled to deduct from the
State of origin in relation to a court-supervised liquidation.                   price of milk paid to a producer the amount owed by that
                                                                                producer by way of additional levy, the provision does not impose
                                                                                on them any obligation in that regard.
(1) OJ C 271 of 4.9.1997.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 29 April 1999                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-288/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa):                                               of 29 April 1999
Consorzio fra i Caseifici dell’Altopiano di Asiago v
                         Regione Veneto (1)                                 in Case C-293/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice): The Queen v Secretary of State
(Milk — Additional levy — Meaning of purchaser —                            for the Environment and Minister of Agriculture Fisheries
                       Producers’ cooperative)                              and Food ex parte H.A. Standley and Others and D.G.D.
                                                                                Metson and Others (1)
                           (1999/C 204/20)
                                                                            (Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against
                                                                            pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Identification of waters affected by pollution — Designation
                                                                            of vulnerable zones — Criteria — Validity in the light of the
                                                                            polluter pays principle, the principle that environmental
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      damage should as a priority be rectified at source, the
                    in the European Court Reports)                               principle of proportionality and the right to property)
In Case C-288/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                         (1999/C 204/21)
the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del
Grappa (District Magistrates’ Court, Bassano del Grappa), Italy,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                 (Language of the case: English)
court between Consorzio fra i Caseifici dell’Altopiano di
Asiago and Regione Veneto — on the interpretation of Articles
2 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28
December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) — the Court                      In Case C-293/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Second Chamber), composed of G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                       the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice of England and
President of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen,                    Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the
Judges, A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               proceedings pending before that court in The Queen v
has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it has ruled:               Secretary of State for the Environment and Minister of
                                                                            Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte H.A. Standley and
1. For the purposes of Articles 2(2) and 9(e) of Council Regulation         Others and D.G.D. Metson and Others, intervener: National
    (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an                    Farmers’ Union, on the interpretation and validity of Council
    additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, the term          Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
    purchaser is to be interpreted as including any intermediary            protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
    undertaking which acquires milk from a producer under a                 agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) — the Court
    contract, irrespective of the manner in which the latter is paid,       (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
    for the purpose either of treating or processing the milk itself or     Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
    of transferring it to another undertaking for treatment or              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
    processing and which, in the event that the undertaking in              D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    question is a collection of cooperatives which are themselves           eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    purchasers carries out on behalf of those cooperatives the              judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it held:
    administrative and accounting operations necessary for the
    payment of the levy, and in particular the operations referred to       1. Articles 2(j) and 3(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
    in Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of                     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against
    9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of                pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and Annex
    the additional levy on milk and milk products.                               I thereto must be interpreted as requiring the identification of
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
     surface freshwaters as ‘waters affected by pollution’, and therefore    having their seat in another Member State and carrying on business
     the designation as ‘vulnerable zones’ in accordance with                in the first Member State through a permanent establishment situated
     Article 3(2) of that directive of all known areas of land which         there, excludes the possibility, accorded only to companies having
     drain into those waters and contribute to their pollution, where        their seat in the first Member State, of benefiting from a lower rate
     those waters contain a concentration of nitrates in excess of           of tax on profits, when there is no objective difference in the situation
     50 mg/l and the Member State concerned considers that the               between those two categories of companies which could justify such a
     discharge of nitrogen compounds from agricultural sources makes         difference in treatment.
     a ‘significant contribution’ to that overall concentration of
     nitrates.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
2. Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 91/676.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 4 May 1999
                                                                             in Case C-262/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Sozialgericht Aachen): Sema Sürül v Bundesanstalt
                                                                                für Arbeit (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Association Council — Social Security — Principle of
                                                                             non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct
                                                                             effect — Turkish national authorised to reside in a Member
                          of 29 April 1999
                                                                             State — Entitlement to family allowances under the same
                                                                                conditions as nationals of that State)
in Case C-311/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Dioikitiko Protokikeio Peiraios): Royal Bank of                                                 (1999/C 204/23)
       Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Tax on                                             (Language of the case: German)
                          company profits)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (1999/C 204/22)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-262/96, Reference to the Court under Article 234
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           EC (ex Article 177) by the Sozialgericht Aachen (Germany) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Sema Sürül and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on
                                                                             the interpretation of certain provisions of Decision No 3/80 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           application of the social security schemes of the Member
                                                                             States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and
In Case C-311/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                members of their families (OJ 1983 110, p. 60) — the Court
the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikio Peiraios (Greece)                 composed          of:     G.C. Rodrı́guez      Iglesias,      President,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Cham-
court between Royal Bank of Scotland plc and Elliniko                        bers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann J.L. Murray,
Dimosio (Greek State) — on the interpretation of Article 7 of                D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and R. Schintger
the EEC Treaty (now Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and Article 52               (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General; A. La Pergola; H. von
of the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May
P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President            1999, in which it held that:
of the Fifth Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O.
Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; Advo-                1. On a proper construction of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80
cate General; S. Alber; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                        of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it                     application of the social security schemes of the Member States
held that:                                                                        of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members
                                                                                of their families, a Member State may not require of a Turkish
                                                                                national covered by that decision whom it has authorised to
Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as                      reside in its territory, but who holds in that host State only a
precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the tax legislation             conditional residence authorisation issued for a specified purpose
in question in the main proceedings, which, in the case of companies              and for a limited duration, that, in order to receive family


title: Case T-514/14: Action brought on 9 July 2014  — Hispavima v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/49

         Action brought on 9 July 2014 — Hispavima v Commission
   (Case T-514/14)
   2014/C 303/57
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hispavima, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: A. Ward, A. Barba and J. Torrecilla, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as it declares the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs);

               —

               in the alternative, uphold the applicant’s claims and declare void the provision laid down in Article 4.1 of the decision, in fine, ordering recovery of the alleged aid, for infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, in any event, recovery of the aid cannot be ordered with effect from before the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to open formal proceedings, on 21 September 2011; in addition, acknowledge that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to those EIGs that fulfilled the objective requirements for the application of the contested tax advantages prior to the publication of the 2006 decision in the Official Journal;

               —

               annul in part Article 2 of the decision and declare unlawful the methodology, set out in paragraphs 263 to 269 of the decision, used to determine the alleged advantage to be reimbursed by the investors, which should have included a series of deductions that were not taken into account;

               —

               annul in part Article 4.1 of the decision, since the Commission clearly acted ultra vires in declaring invalid, in Article 4.1 of the decision, contractual terms providing for compensation to be paid to the investors in the event that the tax advantages of the Spanish Tax Lease system were declared to be unlawful State aid; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission, Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission and Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission


title: Action brought on 6 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-49/97)

text:
No C 108/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5 . 4 . 97
in the initial correspondence, or in bilateral talks, or in the                supply' in Article 11 ( A) ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth Council
arbitration procedure, that the inspection system gave rise                    Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
to the significant risks it claims. Moreover, the inspection                   harmonization of the laws of the Member States
reports pursuant to Regulation (EEC ) No 618/90 were                           relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 3 in                           value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (') to be
conjunction with Annex II of that regulation. The                              interpreted to cover the whole cost of the redemption
requirements placed by the Commission on the inspection                        goods ?
procedure in Germany were based, as least in so far as
their contents were concerned, on Article 17 of Regulation
( EEC) No 2456/93 , a legal basis which at the time in                   2.    Are the redemption goods to be treated as ' supplies
question, namely 1992, was not yet applicable . The                            made for consideration' for the purposes of Article 5
accusation that the German inspection system was                               ( 6 ) of that Directive ?
unreliable can be seen to be untenable merely by looking
at the actual economic circumstances, since an exchange
of good quality procedure for lesser quality produce,                    3.    If the redemption goods are provided otherwise than
which the Commission regards as possible, would                                for consideration or 'free of charge', is Article 5 ( 6 )
inevitably have led to complaints from purchasers, who                         to be interpreted as requiring that the provision of
would have been defrauded in those circumstances . The                         the redemption goods be treated as a supply for
 German Government maintains that its position is further                      consideration notwithstanding that such provision is
supported by the final report of the arbitration body.                          for business purposes ?
 (') OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p . 26 .                             4.     Do any of the foregoing questions require a different
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .                                    answer
                                                                                ( a ) where all the vouchers redeemed for any item of
                                                                                redemption goods were obtained on purchases of
                                                                                premium goods from the promoter of the scheme,
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                                ( b ) where those vouchers were all obtained on
 Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 15 January
  1997, in the case of Kuwait Petroleum (GB ) Ltd against                              purchases of premium goods from a trader who
               the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                                 was a participating dealer in the scheme, or
                             (Case C-48/97 )
                                                                                ( c ) where the vouchers redeemed were obtained
                              97/C 108/ 17 )                                           partly on purchases of premium goods from the
                                                                                promoter and partly on purchases of premium
                                                                                goods from one or more participating dealers ?
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  European Communities by a direction of the VAT and
  Duties Tribunal, London, of 15 January 1997, which was                  5.     If the answer to question 3 is 'No', is the United
  received at the Court Registry /on 6 February 1997, for a                      Kingdom entitled pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth
  preliminary ruling in the case of Kuwait Petroleum ( GB )                      Council Directive and under the derogation obtained
  Ltd against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on                        by it in 1977 to impose an output tax charge on the
  the following questions:                                                       promoter which is based on the cost to the promoter
                                                                                of the redemption goods in addition to the output tax
                                                                                included in the full retail price of the premium
  Where a supplier of goods operates a business promotion                         goods ?
   scheme, under which, in outline :
                                                                          H OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
   (i)     the promoter provided redemption goods for business
           purposes in accordance with the terms of the scheme;
   ( ii ) for no payment in money at the point of redemption;
                                                                          Action brought on 6 February 1997 by the Commission of
    ( iii) against the redemption of vouchers to which a                     the European Communities against the French Republic
           purchaser of premium goods became entitled by
           paying the full retail price of those goods without                                       ( Case C-49/97)
           making any identifiable monetary payment for the                                            ( 97/C 108/ 18 )
           vouchers .
     1.     Is the expression 'price discounts and rebates allowed        An action against the French Republic was brought before
            to the customer and accounted for at the time of               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 11
6 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                            References to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                              Pretura Circondariale di Trento by orders of 3 February
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and J. J. Evrard,                   1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                          between 1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2. Mauro Scandella and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Others, and 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                                             Ente Poste Italiane
                                                                                (Case C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/19 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by orders of the Pretura Circonda
                                                                             riale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the District of
— declare that by maintaining in force two circulars                         Trento ), which was received at the Court Registry on
       allowing the maximum levels for nitrates and                          7 February 1997, for preliminary rulings in the cases of
       pesticides prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive               1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2 . Mauro Scandella and Others, and
       80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of                 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and Ente Poste
       water intended for human consumption ( l ) to be                      Italiane, on the following question:
       exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that Directive,                                     ( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular
                                                                                public economic entity from the obligation of
                                                                                complying with the generally applicable legislation
                                                                                concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                     within the scope of ' aid granted by a Member State or
                                                                                through State resources in any form whatsoever';
                                                                             ( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                an aid of that kind should be subject to the
                                                                                preliminary examination procedure under Article 93
                                                                                ( 3 ) of the Treaty;
Council Directive 80/778/EEC is implemented in French                        (c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,
law by, inter alia, Decree No 89-3 of 3 January 1989 on                            the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded
water intended for human consumption other than natural                            as directly applicable within the domestic law of the
mineral waters, as amended by Decrees No 90-330 and                                Italian State;
No 91-257 ( 2). That statutory system is complemented by
two circulars from the Minister for Health and Social                        ( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in
Security (Ministre de la solidarité, de la santé et la protec                     the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in
tion sociale ), addressed to all regional and departmental                         a dispute between the public economic entity and an
prefects ( 3 ). Those circulars are incompatible with the                          individual who complains of failure to apply to him
Directive in that, first, they permit levels of nitrates,                          the general legislation concerning fixed-term
atrazine and simazine which significantly exceed the                               employment in order to secure conversion of his
maximum permissible concentrations laid down by the                                employment relationship into one of indeterminate
Directive. Secondly, the circulars create a situation of legal                     duration and/or compensation for damage .
uncertainty in the conditions for applying Directive 80/
778/EEC in French territory; they imply that the result
required by the Directive has not been and cannot be
achieved, and that neither consumers, nor operators                          Appeal brought on 10 February 1997 by Association Inter
entrusted with the production or distribution of water for                   nationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et
human consumption, nor the authorities in charge of                          Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass ) and Apparel,
ensuring water quality are able to ascertain the precise                     Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) against the judgment
extent of their respective rights and obligations. Finally,                  delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Fifth Chamber,
the French Government's arguments calling into question                      Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the policy foundation of the Directive in relation to the                    the European Communities in Case T-3 80/94 between
requirements of public health are both irrelevant as                         Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Fila
regards the obligations imposed by Article 189 of the EC                     ments Artificiels et Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle ( Aiuf
Treaty and unfounded in fact.                                                fass ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), on
                                                                             the one hand, and Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great
(') OJ No L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 .
                                                                                Britain and Northern Ireland, on the other
( 2 ) JORF, 4. 1 . 1989, 13 . 4. 1990 and 8 . 3 . 1991 .
(') DSG/PGE/ 1.D. No 717 — triazine content of water intended                                           ( Case C-55/97 P)
      for human consumption; DGS/PGE/1.D. No 1325 — nitrate
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/20 )
      content of water intended for human consumption.
                                                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                              1996 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the


title: Case C-41/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/19

         Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-41/10)
   2010/C 80/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by incorrectly and incompletely transposing Directive 73/239/EEC (1) and Directive 92/49/EEC (2), the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under, inter alia, Articles 6, 8, 15, 16 and 17 of First Directive 73/239/EEC and Articles 20, 21 and 22 of Third Directive 92/49/EEC;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Commission claims that as the activities of the Belgian mutual companies in the field of supplementary sickness insurance are not part of the statutory social security scheme, they do not comply with the first and third non-life insurance directives. In so far as the mutual companies compete directly with the insurance companies in the market for supplementary sickness insurance, they should be subject to the same legal regime as those insurance companies. The applicant disputes in that regard the defendant’s assertion that the supplementary sickness insurance services offered by the mutual companies are covered by the exception provided for in Article 2(1)(d) of the First Directive and claims that the cover under the supplementary insurance cannot be treated in the same way as ‘insurance forming part of a statutory system of social security’.
   The Commission maintains, first, that Article 6 of the First Directive requires that access to the activity of direct insurance be subject to a prior official authorisation sought from the competent authorities of the Member State in the territory of which the undertaking has its company seat. However, the Belgian mutual companies were not authorised in accordance with that provision in relation to their supplementary sickness insurance activities.
   Secondly, the applicant alleges that the defendant infringed Article 8(1)(a) of the First Directive in so far as mutual companies are not included among the legal forms required for insurance companies in Belgium. Furthermore, the mutual companies are authorised to carry out a broad range of activities which are not directly connected with their insurance activities whereas Article 8(1)(b) lays down that the undertaking must limit its business activities to the business of insurance and operations directly arising therefrom to the exclusion of all other commercial business. The Belgian legislation also poses a problem with regard to Articler 8(1)(c) in so far as it provides that the undertaking must present a scheme of operations in accordance with Article 9 of the directive. However, no scheme of that type was presented by the mutual companies in relation to their supplementary sickness insurance activities. Finally, the Belgian mutual companies were not obliged to possess the minimum guarantee fund, contrary to the requirement set out in Article 8(1)(d) of the First Directive.
   Thirdly, the Commission claims that, under Article 13 et seq. of the First Directive (in particular, Articles 16, 16a and 17) and Articles 15 and 20 to 22 of the Third Directive, the mutual companies must establish sufficient technical reserves in relation to their supplementary sickness insurance activities as well as a sufficient solvency margin in relation to all of their activities. However, in Belgium, the solvency margin for supplementary insurance provided by mutual companies was established only in 2002 and the method of calculating that margin differed from that provided for by the First Directive.

      (1)  First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance.

      (2)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive).


title: Case T-348/03: Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/35
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               Coberco Dairy Foods Holding N.V., established in Meppel
                            INSTANCE                                       (Netherlands), represented by Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk.
                       of 20 October 2003
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-46/03 R: Leali SpA v Commission of the
                    European Communities
                                                                           1)    annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 17 February
(Application for interim measures — Competition — Pay-                           2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
    ment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)                              for international financing of activities (2003/515/EC) in
                                                                                so far as it is decided that undertakings which as at
                                                                                11 July 2001 had already lodged a request with the tax
                          (2004/C 21/74)                                         authority for application of the gfa scheme, but in respect
                                                                                of which no formal decision had yet been taken, would
                                                                                not be eligible for the transitional scheme;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2)    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                those of the applicant.
In Case T-46/03 R: Leali Spa, whose registered office is in
Odolo (Italy), represented by G. Belotti and G. Vezzoli, lawyers,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia)
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Whelan) — application for
suspension of operation of the Commission decision of
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65
CS (COMP/37.956 — concrete-reinforcing bars), inasmuch as
it imposes upon the applicant, jointly and severally with
Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, in liquidation, a fine of
EUR 6,093 million and, solely upon the applicant, a fine of                On 27 December the applicant lodged a request with the
EUR 1,082 million, the President of the Court of First Instance            Netherlands tax authority to set up a reserve with effect from
made an order on 20 October 2003, the operative part of                    1 January 2000 on the basis of the scheme concerning
which is as follows:                                                       international financing activities (the gfa scheme).
1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           In the contested decision (1) the Commission found that the
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           gfa scheme was aid that was incompatible with the common
                                                                           market and ordered the Netherlands Government to abolish
                                                                           the scheme. In addition the contested decision provides for a
                                                                           transitional scheme. The Commission subsequently, in an
                                                                           answer to a question from the Netherlands Government,
                                                                           indicated that this transitional scheme does not apply for
                                                                           undertakings which, like the applicant, had in fact lodged a
                                                                           request for application of the gfa scheme before 11 April 2003
Action brought on 10 October 2003 by Friesland Coberco                     but where no decision had yet been taken on that request. The
Dairy Foods Holding N.V. against the Commission of the                     Netherlands tax authority then rejected the applicant’s request.
                    European Communities
                         (Case T-348/03)
                                                                           In support of its application, the applicant pleads infringement
                                                                           of general principles of Community law, including the prin-
                          (2004/C 21/75)                                   ciple of equal treatment and the principle of protection of
                                                                           legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, the general
                                                                           principles of Community law preclude the restriction of the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           transitional scheme to undertakings in respect of which a
                                                                           decision had been taken as at 11 July 2001. By virtue of that
                                                                           restriction, undertakings which at that moment had a request
                                                                           pending before the tax authority for permission to set up a
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  reserve, and which were therefore just as much entitled to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 expect that the gfa scheme was compatible with the Treaty,
European Communities on 10 October 2003 by Friesland                       are being treated differently without any objective justification.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/36                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.                  Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
According to the applicant, the Commission has not                                KG against the Council of the European Union
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
                                                                                (Case T-364/03)
decision as at 11 July 2001.
(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the                                     (2004/C 21/77)
    State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
    financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against The Council of the European Union was
Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                           against Europol                                 Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
                                                                           Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
                                                                           MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           (Case T-355/03)
                            (2004/C 21/76)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
                                                                                Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
                                                                                the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
                                                                                the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                        the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                         the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),                       procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.                                priate;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
                                                                                the procedure.
1)     annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
       complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
       and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;
2)     order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,               Pleas in law and main arguments
       including in any event the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
                                                                           manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
                                                                           China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra              tive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags
step with effect from 1 July 2002.                                         originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
                                                                           1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an              0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.
                                                                           However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
                                                                           consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
                                                                           refunded.


title: Case C-103/10: Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-103/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/52
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 01.05.2010.


title: Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-148/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/19
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant                        Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans
     compensation for non-material harm in the sum of              and Others against the Commission of the European
     ECU 5 000 000;                                                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-148/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 358/36)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant was a Member of the European Parliament              An action against the Commission of the European
between 1989 and 1994. While serving as an M.E.P. he               Communities was brought before the Court of First
was Vice-President of the Parliamentary Intergroup for             Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
Cooperation between the Community and the countries of             1998 by J. G. Evans and Others, represented by Thomas
Eastern Europe. In 1990 that intergroup decided, in                Graham and Barbara Hewson, with an address for service
conjunction with the intergroup for tourism, to organise a         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11,
conference on tourism between the European Union and               rue Goethe.
the States of central and Eastern Europe.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Its organisation was funded, inter alia, by a grant given by
the European Commission within the framework of the
European Year of Tourism amounting to ECU 30 000,                  Ð annul the Decision of the Commission in Case IV/E-3/
which represented 20 % of the estimated cost of the event.             SWSMA of 30 July 1998 declaring that the
By the contested decision the applicant is now asked to                Commission had no power to act under Article 63(1)
refund ECU 24 000 to the Commission on the ground that                 of the ECSC Treaty in respect of past price
it was wrongly paid. The applicant maintains that the                  discrimination by purchasers against coal-producers
sums in question were handled absolutely lawfully and                  during the period 1984 to 1 April 1990; and
properly and puts forward the following grounds for
annulment:
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
1. Total failure to state the grounds for the contested
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     decision;
                                                                   In 1990, 93 coal producers (among them the applicants)
2. Infringement of general principles of Community law,
                                                                   complained in the name of the South Wales Small Mines
     in particular:
                                                                   Association (SWSMA) to the Commission of price
                                                                   discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board
     2.1. failure to grant a hearing;                              (CEGB) and its successors, National Power and Power
                                                                   Gen. The complaint concerned the operation of a Joint
                                                                   Understanding between British Coal and the CEGB,
     2.2. misuse of powers;                                        whereby the CEGB bought the bulk of the coal required
                                                                   for electricity generation from british Coal at prices which
     2.3. infringement of       the   principle   of   good        were considerably higher than those offered to the small
           administration;                                         coal producers like the applicants, who were British Coal's
                                                                   competitors.
     2.4. infringement of the principle of the protection of
           legitimate expectations.                                By the contested decision the SWSMA was informed that
                                                                   the Commission had decided not to act on that complaint.
The applicant submits in the alternative that the
Commission's claims relating to the grant in question are          The applicants submit that the Commission erred in law
time-barred.                                                       in concluding that it had no power to make a
                                                                   recommendation under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   in respect of price discrimination during the period 1984
Finally the applicant, relying upon the second paragraph           to 1 April 1990. They submit that the Commission is so
of Article 215(2) of the EC Treaty, claims compensation            empowered. Alternatively, the Commission unlawfully
for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason          refused to act under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
of contested Decision.
                                                                   Furthermore the applicants submit that the Commission's
                                                                   finding that no ground existed for issuing a
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
recommendation was wrong in law. The Commission's                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reasoning in its decision is circular and flawed. The
Commission failed to apply correctly the analysis of the
Court of Justice in a leading case (1).                               The applicant contests the decision of the Commission
                                                                      authorising the grant of further aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais and
                                                                      re-evaluating the amount of aid resulting from the hive-off
The Commission failed to make any findings as to                      mechanism previously authorised on 26 July 1995.
whether or not discrimination existed in the relevant
period, although the facts set out in the complaint
provided support for such a finding. The Commission
                                                                      The applicant maintains that that aid is illegal under
further failed to draw all the inferences as regards the
                                                                      Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, since it was not notified in
effects which such discrimination may have had in the
                                                                      advance to the Commission. In the absence of exceptional,
relationship between purchasers and producers, as
                                                                      unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of CreÂdit
contemplated in Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, even
                                                                      Lyonnais which would have placed it in a significantly
before it took action. The applicant submits, in the
                                                                      worse situation, it was not open to the Commission,
alternative, that the Commission unlawfully failed to act
                                                                      without infringing the provisions of Article 92(3) and
pursuant to Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty. As a result,
                                                                      breaching its obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
the applicants are unable to seek any relief in the United
                                                                      to authorise in the present case grants of additional aid
Kingdom courts for the massive losses sustained during
                                                                      over and above those previously authorised.
the period 1984 to 1 April 1990. The contested decision
does not ensure effective protection as required by
Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty.
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested decision does
                                                                      not specify the amount of the aid with sufficient precision.
(1) Case C-18/94 of 2 May 1996, Hopkins and Others v.                 Moreover, the estimate of that amount is vitiated by an
    National Power and Power Gen, ECR I-2281.                         error of law and by a manifest error of assessment, which
                                                                      led the Commission to underestimate by nearly 50 billion
                                                                      francs the amount of aid actually granted to CreÂdit
                                                                      Lyonnais. Those errors prevented the Commission from
                                                                      correctly assessing the compatibility of the aid with the
                                                                      common market, as required by Article 92(3)(c) of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and the Guidelines for its application.
Action brought on 21 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                      The applicant further considers that the 1998 decision is
                       (Case T-149/98)                                illegal, inasmuch as it is based on the provisions of
                                                                      Article 2(c) of the decision of 26 July 1995, which are
                         (98/C 358/37)
                                                                      themselves unlawful under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      this meant that the Commission was constrained to limit
                (Language of the case: French)                        the inferences drawn by it from the deviation established
                                                                      in the evaluation of the cost of hive-off authorised in 1995
                                                                      to a mere increase in the quid pro quos to be provided by
An action against the Commission of the European                      CreÂdit Lyonnais, without examining any alternative
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     solutions.
Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
1998 by SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale, established in Paris, represented
by Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address             Contrary to the requirements imposed by the provisions of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                    Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty and by the Guidelines for
Manhaeve, 56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.                                   its application, the decision does not examine the
                                                                      alternative solutions which the French authorities could
                                                                      have adopted instead of granting additional aid: it rejects
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           from the outset, and without providing any reasons, the
                                                                      solution of a refusal to authorise the aid, even though that
                                                                      would have been more satisfactory from the point of view
Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty, the
                                                                      of its effects on competition.
     Commission's decision of 20 May 1998, published in
     the Official Journal of the European Communities of
     8 August 1998, authorising the grant by the French
     authorities of additional aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais;               In the alternative, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                      decision should be annulled inasmuch as it provides for
                                                                      quid pro quos which are inadequate to remedy the serious
Ð order repayment of the said aid;                                    distortions of competition resulting from the authorisation
                                                                      of the aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais as a whole, as required by
                                                                      Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
     expenses incurred in the course of the present
     proceedings.


18.12.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 366/33
       Removal from the register of Case T-198/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-97/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/76)                                                         (1999/C 366/79)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   By order of 9 July 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Case T-198/96: Christine Dalby v Commission of the European              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-97/98:
Communities.                                                             Maurizio Gastaldello v Committee of the Regions of the
                                                                         European Union.
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-218/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/77)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-78/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/80)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-218/96: Paul Hodson v Commission of the European                  By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the First
Communities.                                                             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-78/99: Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v
(1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                             Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-59/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/78)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/81)
By order of 13 October 1999, the President of the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                   (Language of the case: French)
the register of Case T-59/98: Honeywell Inc. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 22 October 1999, the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
(1) OJ No C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                            the removal from the register of Case T-162/99 R: Luigia
                                                                         Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-514/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY)
      (Case T-514/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/33)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NCL (Miami, Florida, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2012 (Case R 1017/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NORWEGIAN BREAKAWAY as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders NCL Corporation Ltd., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-482/10: Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-482/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision 2010/432/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.


title: Case T-175/13: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014  — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/38

         Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
   (Case T-175/13) (1)

   2014/C 194/53
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Action brought on 11 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-198/96)

text:
 24 . 8 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/5
 The questions referred by that court to the Court of Justice                a result of the scheme for the cessation of milk
 for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   production provided for by Council Regulation
 C-101 /96 ( ).                                                              ( EEC ) No 1637/91 ('), a mechanism whereby, first,
                                                                             non-priority producers do not see the disappearance of
 (>) OJ No C 158 , 1996 , p . 3 .                                            the reduction in their reference quantities occurring
                                                                             during the eighth period but face a definitive further
                                                                             reduction in their reference quantities , and whereby,
                                                                             second , the redistribution to producers of the reference
                                                                             quantities freed is carried out on the basis of the
 Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Federal Republic                      cessation volume recorded in respect of their purchaser,
 of Germany against the Commission of the European                           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                              Communities                                    under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of 13 June
                          ( Case C-195/96 )                                  1991 fixing compensation with regard to the reference
                                                                             quantities referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
                             ( 96/C 247/08 )
                                                                             No 804/68 ( 2 ) and compensation for the definitive
                                                                             discontinuation of milk production ( OJ No L 150 ,
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             1991 , p. 30 ) and to observe the principle of
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  non-discrimination laid down in Article 40 ( 3 ) of the
 European Communities on 10 June 1996 by the Federal
                                                                             Treaty ;
Republic of Germany , represented by Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat, of the
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs , D-53107 Bonn .                   2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 1 . annul Decision K(96 ) 1203 final of the Commission of
      13 March 1 996 concerning the grant of State aid by the           The action concerns the situation arising in particular from
      Freistaat Bayern ( Free State of Bavaria ) to the ECSC            an order of 6 April 1 992 relating to the distribution of the
      steel undertaking Neuc Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH ,                reference quantities freed pursuant to Decree No 91-835 of
      Sulzbach-Rosenberg;                                               30 August 1991 , published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                        French Republic of 3 May 1992 , p. 6123 .
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     ( As regards the discriminatory distribution of the national
                                                                        reserve quantities )
— failure to comply with essential procedural formalities
     ( obligation to provide a statement of reasons in                 The principle of non-discrimination ( Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
     accordance with Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty ),                  Treaty ) prohibits any distribution of reference quantities
                                                                       whereby allocations to specified producers are made
— erroneous application of Articles 4 ( c ) and 83 of the              conditional on the volume of the quantities freed by other
     ECSC Treaty .                                                     producers supplying the same purchaser. This applies both
                                                                        in respect of the distribution of available funds arising from
The main arguments are the same as those in Case                       the discontinuance of activities and as regards funds
C-399/95 (').                                                           becoming available as a result of an across-the-board levy .
                                                                       Considerations connected with the need for decentralized
(') O J No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 5 .                               management, such as those cited by the French authorities ,
                                                                       cannot justify any failure to observe that principle .
                                                                       The Commission rejects the argument regarding the
Action brought on 11 June 1996 by the Commission of the                maintenance of a balance between different regions and
    European Communities against the French Republic                   different undertakings . Far from promoting a regional
                                                                       balance, the link established by the French rules between the
                         ( Case C-198/96 )                             level of the allocation of reference quantities within a
                            ( 96/C 247/09 )                            collection zone and the rate of discontinuation within that
                                                                       zone will result in the penalization of the most efficient
An action against the French Republic was brought before               regions .
the Court of Justice on 1 1 June 1 996 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis,
                                                                       ( As regards the failure to comply with Article 2 ( 4 ) ( a ) of
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Regulation No 1637/91 )
Kirchberg.
                                                                       The order of 6 April 1992 fails to observe the Member
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           States ' obligation to reconstitute the reference quantities
                                                                       reduced during the eighth period ( in France, 2,15% ).
1 . declare that, by setting up, in the context of the                 Although , according to Article 4 of that order, Onilait is to
     redistribution of the reference quantities freed as               reconstitute the reference quantities by making allocations
 ---pagebreak--- No C 247/6               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24 . 8 . 96
corresponding to the references as at 30 March 1992                         2 . In the abovementioned Long-term Plan , the principles of
multiplied by the 2,15 % rate of refund , this may only take                      self-sufficiency and proximity find specific expression in
place in parallel with an across-the-board reduction in                           the pursuit of the best possible quality method of
reference quantities of the order of 2,35 % . As a result of                      disposal ( including recovery ) and continuity of disposal .
that operation , most producers who were previously                               Does this constitute a correct implementation of those
entitled to the removal of the reduction of 2,15 % occurring                      principles ?
during the eighth period will ultimately be faced not with the
reconstitution of their reference quantities but with their                 3 . ( a ) In so far as the criteria laid down in the Long-term
further reduction . It is clear from the wording of texts                               Plan for objecting to the export of waste for
published by the Ministry of Agriculture that the reduction                             recovery are in themselves acceptable, is this then a
operation was designed as a correcting mechanism to                                     case of a measure having equivalent effect within
neutralize the intended effect of Article 2 of Regulation                               the meaning of Article 34 of the EC Treaty, and is
No 1637/91 , that is to say , the reconstitution , to a level of                        there any justification for it ?
100% , of the reference quantities of most producers .
                                                                                ( b ) In that context, if the principles of self-sufficiency
                                                                                and proximity may be applied in regard to waste
(') OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .                                              intended for recovery , does it make any difference
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 176 .                                whether those principles are applied primarily
                                                                                within the Community as a whole or exclusively at
                                                                                national level ?
                                                                            4 . Are the exclusive rights to incinerate dangerous waste
                                                                                conferred by the Netherlands authority on AVR Chemie
                                                                                CV in Sectoral Plan 10 of Part II of the Long-term Plan
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse                           compatible with Article 90 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction
Raad van State, by order of that court of 23 April 1996 in                        with Article 86 of the EC Treaty , having regard to the
the case of 1 . Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 .                         reasons given for such conferral in the Long-term
Factron Technik GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde                             Plan ?
BV v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning
                          and Conservation                                  (') O ) No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                           ( Case C-203 /96 )                               ( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .
                                                                            C ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 .
                             ( 96/C 247/ 10 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
23 April 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
14 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 .                  Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 21 March
Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 . Factron Technik                   1996 in the case of E. F. Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v.
GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde BV v. Minister for                                              Marianne Seidel
Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation on                                               ( Case C-204/96 )
the following questions:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 11 )
1 . ( a ) Having regard to the scheme of Regulation ( EEC )
            No 259/93 ( 1 ) of 1 February 1993 on the                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            supervision and control of shipments of wastes                  European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate of
            within , into and out of the European Community                 the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) of
            and Directive 75/442/EFC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1975 on               21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
            waste , as amended by Directive 91 / 156/EEC ( '),              on 1 7 June 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of E. F.
            read in conjunction with each other, do the                     Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v. Marianne Seidel on the
            principles of self-sufficiency and proximity apply              following questions :
            solely to the shipment between Member States of
            waste for disposal or also to waste for recovery ?              1 . Is there an undertaking, business or part of a business
                                                                                within the meaning of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
      ( b ) If the Court of Justice takes the view that                           14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of
            Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 and Directive                            the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
            75/442/EEC do not provide a basis for the                             employees' rights in the event of transfers of
            application of the principles of self-sufficiency and                 undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses ( '), on
            proximity to the shipment between Member States                       the part of the awarder of the contract or the contractor,
            of waste for recovery , can Article 130t of the EC                    if an employer does not himself perform certain
            Treaty then provide a basis for rules such as those                   activities which can be carried out only in his business
            contained in the relevant part of the Long-term Plan                  but has them done , on the basis of a service contract or
            for Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993                          contract for services , by a third party who engages the
            drawn up by the Netherlands Government ?                              necessary employees and is their employer ?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 13 December 2001 in Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 56/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            2.3.2002
& Excise and CSC Financial Services Ltd, on the interpretation                to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October
of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council Directive                           1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                        transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                    cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,                ment in national and international transport operations (OJ
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,                    1998 L 277, p. 17) or, in any event, by not notifying
Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar:                  those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                                   directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and
                                                                              M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
                                                                              which it:
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
—      ‘transactions in securities’ means transactions liable to create,            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       alter or extinguish parties’ rights and obligations in respect of            comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
       securities;                                                                  amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation
                                                                                of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator
—      ‘negotiation in securities’ does not cover services limited to               and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
       providing information about a financial product and, as                      evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these
       the case may be, receiving and processing applications for                   operators the right to freedom of establishment in national
       subscription to the relevant securities, without issuing them.               and international transport operations, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                          13 December 2001
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arios Pagos
in Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Greece) by order of 10 July 2001 in the case of Alexan-
              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                            dros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio
                                                                              (the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrot-
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        isis Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator,
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the                          Ethniki Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou
                           prescribed period)                                 kai Pathitikou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Geor-
                                                                                gios I. Tsamasfiros and Others
                             (2002/C 56/03)
                                                                                (Case C-303/01)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
In Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communities                      European Communities by order of the Arios Pagos (Greek
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                    Supreme Court) of 10 July 2001, received at the Court Registry
J. Faltz) — application for a declaration that by failing to adopt            on 30 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio