C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: Case C-489/16: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, supported by: French Republic

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, supported by: French Republic
   (Case C-489/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/21)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-380/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 — Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits — Partial access)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 — Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-380/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits - Partial access)
   (2008/C 64/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, L. Defalque, G. Xanthoulis, A. Tsamis, A. Georgiadis, E. Stefanakis, É. Koeune and G. Stylianakis, lawyers, and subsequently, G. Stylianakis, B. Keane, Solicitor, and P. Koutsoukos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Terezakis.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-202/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste management — Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece))

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-202/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece)))
   (2017/C 202/09)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and E. Sanfrutos Cano acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by tolerating the operation of the waste disposal site in Temploni (Greece), which does not satisfy the conditions and requirements laid down in the environmental legislation of the European Union, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Article 8(a), Article 11(1) and Annex I to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

               2)

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo) by orders of that court of 30 July 1997 in the case of Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa; Co-defendant: Diputación Foral de Guipuzcoa; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco; Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Alava Co-defendant: Diputación Foral de Alava; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco; and Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco and Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97)

text:
7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 41/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                to the Duty-Free Regulation and in Article 36 of the
gericht Halle by order of that court of 1 October 1997 in               EC Treaty or on other imperative requirements of the
the case of Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co.                      public interest, are compatible with the provisions of
              KG v. Landkreis Burgenlandkreis                           the Regulation and the Directive?
                       (Case C-393/97)
                         (98/C 41/15)                              2. Do facts (a) to (h) set out in point IV(6) of this order
                                                                        for reference constitute grounds such that a Member
                                                                        State's national restrictions based thereon are
                                                                        compatible with the provisions of the Duty-Free
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Regulation and the Travel Directive?
European      Communities        by  an    order    of   the
Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Halle Administrative Court) of
1 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry           3. May a rule limiting travellers' imports of alcoholic
on 19 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                    drinks, which in this question also includes beer, on
case of Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG v.                    the basis of the duration of the journey be regarded as
Landkreis Burgenlandkreis on the following questions:                   compatible with the provisions of the Duty-Free
                                                                        Regulation and the Travel Directive?
1. Do provisions of the European Union, in particular
                                                                   (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
    Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 (1),                setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
    preclude a national provision under which products of              (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1).
    comminuted meat such as minced meat and ground                 (2) Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the
    meat, even if prepared, may be put on the market on                harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    the date of production only, unless they have been                 administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax
    packed and labelled in an individual package for sale              and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ, English
    to the final consumer or have been frozen or deep                  Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232).
    frozen?
2. If so, do those provisions of the European Union apply
    also to factual situations in which the production
    plant is in the same State as that in which the
    comminuted meat product such as minced or ground               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
    meat is to be put on the market?                               Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Sala de lo
                                                                   Contencioso-Administrativo) by orders of that court of
                                                                   30 July 1997 in the case of Administración del Estado
(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                   against Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa; Co-defendant:
                                                                   Diputación Foral de Guipuzcoa; Intervener: Gobierno
                                                                   Vasco; Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales
                                                                   del Territorio Histórico de Alava Co-defendant:
                                                                   Diputación Foral de Alava; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco;
                                                                   and Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales
                                                                   del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia; Intervener: Gobierno
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin                          Vasco and Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 5 November 1997
                                                                         (Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97)
in the criminal proceedings against Sami Lasse Juhani
                           Heinonen                                                           (98/C 41/17)
                       (Case C-394/97)
                         (98/C 41/16)                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
                                                                   de Justicia del País Vasco (Sala de lo Contencioso-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Administrativo) (High Court of Justice of the Basque
European Communities by an order of the Helsingin                  Country, Chamber for Contentious Administrative
Käräjäoikeus (Helsinki District Court) of 5 November               Proceedings) of 30 July 1997, which was received at the
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                  Court Registry on 1 December 1997, for a preliminary
25 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                  ruling in the case of Administración del Estado against
criminal proceedings against Sami Lasse Juhani Heinonen            Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa; Co-defendant: Diputación
on the following questions:                                        Foral de Guipuzcoa; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco;
                                                                   Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del
                                                                   Territorio Histórico de Alava Co-defendant: Diputación
1. May the Duty-Free Regulation (1) and the Travel                 Foral de Alava; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco; and
    Directive (2) be interpreted as meaning that national          Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del
    limits laid down by Member States on imports by                Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia; Intervener: Gobierno
    travellers of beer and other alcoholic drinks, based on        Vasco and Diputación Foral de Bizkaia on the following
    grounds referred to in the ninth recital in the preamble       question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
On a proper construction of Article 52 of the EC Treaty            The continued failure by the Portuguese Republic to fulfil
and, as the case may be, Article 92(1), do those provisions        its obligations under the abovementioned Decision entails,
preclude legislation, affecting a territory within an              at the same time, infringement of Article 93(3) of the
autonomous community of a Member State, on urgent                  Treaty, since Portugal continues not to comply with the
fiscal measures to aid investment and stimulate economic           suspensory effect of the aforementioned Decision which is
activity, which may benefit taxable persons who pay tax            intended to prevent the payment of aid incompatible with
exclusively to the tax authorities for that territory or are       the common market and, indirectly, of Article 93(2),
resident there for tax purposes and whose volume of                which provides for the adoption of decisions requiring the
transactions in that autonomous community preceding tax            abolition of incompatible aid.
year exceeds 25 % of their total volume of transactions,
and which does not include among those to whom those
measures apply other natural and legal persons resident in         (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 14.
the State itself or in another Member State of the
European Community?
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                   Bremen by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission                case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                 Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs- und
                           Republic                                Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) against
                       (Case C-404/97)                                                 Hauptzollamt Bremen
                         (98/C 41/18)                                                     (Case C-405/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/19)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of the European               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafyllou and             European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as            (Finance Court), Bremen of 7 October 1997, received at
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           the Court Registry on 3 December 1997, for a preliminary
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,           ruling in the case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          für das Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs-
                                                                   und Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) v.
                                                                   Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   1. Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version
1. declare that, by failing to abolish and recover, within              contained in Annex I to Commission Regulation
    the prescribed period, the aid from which EPAC                      (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August 1993 (OJ L 241,
    (Empresa para a AgroalimentacËaÄo e Cereais, SA)                    27.9.1993, p. 1) amending Annex I to Council
    unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed                Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
    to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and, in               statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
    particular, under Commission Decision C(97) 2130 of                 Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1994) to be
    9 July 1997;                                                        interpreted so that dried walnut pieces imported from
                                                                        a non-member country, which were stored deep-frozen
                                                                        in a customs warehouse in the Community and
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                      subsequently presented for admission to free
                                                                        circulation in a thawed condition, are to be classified
                                                                        under heading No 0802?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   2. If not:
Under Articles 189 and 191 of the EC Treaty, the
abovementioned Commission Decision should have been
implemented by the Portuguese Republic, even if it did
have doubts concerning its legality. In Case C-330/97 (1)               Was Article 522(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
the Portuguese Republic did not claim that it was                       No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
absolutely impossible to implement the Decision, given                  p. 1), which has since been replaced by the new
that the fact that the undertaking was being wound up                   version of Article 522 introduced by Commission
(which as not relied upon in that respect) did not in any               Regulation (EEC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994
event constitute an insurmountable difficulty.                          (OJ L 346, 31.12.1994, p. 1), inoperative?


title: Case T-75/17: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/34

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
   (Case T-75/17)
   (2017/C 178/55)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-159/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Partial exemption from mineral levies for crops grown under glass or on substrate)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-159/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Partial exemption from mineral levies for crops grown under glass or on substrate)
   (2004/C 118/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-159/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: J. van Bakel) with an address for service in Luxembourg v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and H. van Vliet) with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/371/EC of 21 December 2000 on the exemption from mineral levies under the manure law which the Netherlands intends to grant (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 42), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004 in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 28.7.2001.


title: Case T-410/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2015 by Jaana Pohjanmäki against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2015 in Case F-44/14, Pohjanmäki v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/26

         Appeal brought on 28 July 2015 by Jaana Pohjanmäki against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2015 in Case F-44/14, Pohjanmäki v Council
   (Case T-410/15 P)
   (2015/C 337/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jaana Pohjanmäki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 18 May 2015 in Case F-44/14 and itself give judgment on the case;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, as well as infringement of the right of the defence, in so far as the assessment of the appellant’s merits was not performed carefully and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, in so far as the members of the Advisory Committee on Promotion were not aware of the appellant’s staff reports during the reference period.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’), since it considered that the appellant’s merits had been compared with those of officials in linguists’ roles.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law on the part of the CST, since it found that the appointing authority had legitimately reviewed the appellant’s situation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of arms, in so far as certain important aspects of the dispute were not discussed.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST accepted the defendant’s view that the appellant’s level of merit was not consistently high.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the evidence, since the CST held that the appellant’s level of responsibility had been assessed in accordance with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST held that the defendant had supplemented its statement of reasons at the hearing, when in fact it had substituted its statement of reasons.


title: Case T-493/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Sun World International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import (SUPERIOR SEEDLESS)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/33

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Sun World International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import (SUPERIOR SEEDLESS)
   (Case T-493/08)
   (2009/C 19/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sun World International LLC (Bakersfield, United States) (represented by: M. Holah, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2008 in case R 1378/2007-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘SUPERIOR SEEDLESS’ for goods in class 31 — Community trade mark registration No 610 980

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial invalidity of the Community trade mark concerned

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly identified the relevant public; (ii) wrongly refused to allow a withdrawal of the Community trade mark registration in respect of some of the goods in the specification; (iii) made an unlawful assumption based on the lack of a United Kingdom or Irish registration; and (iv) incorrectly assessed the evidence filed.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by SECIL - Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-62/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/25
        3 . an error in the grounds of the decision, as a result of            3.   limited access to the documents on which the
             the inadequate assessment of the economic criteria                     charge is based ;
             underlying the applicant's beaviour on the
             market;                                                           4 . use of a language other than Portuguese;
        4 . inadequacy and erroneous assessment of the                         5 . inadequacy of the period for replying to the
             evidence on which the Commission's decision is
                                                                                statement of objections and disruption of the
             based ,   as    regards    the   applicant's   alleged                 normal exercise of the right to a fair hearing;
             participation in both the ' Cembureau Agreement'
             and the 'Iberian agreement'.
                                                                               6 . impairment of the right to reply orally and in
III . Defects relating to the fixing of the penalty imposed on                      writing and confusion in the administrative
        the applicant, arising from :                                               procedure between the preliminary examination
                                                                                and the statement of their case by the parties .
         1 . breach of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                          II . Breach of the rules on the statement of reasons, on
         2 . breach of the principle of proportionality.                       evidence and on the adequacy of the evidence on which
                                                                               the decision is based, arising from:
                                                                               1 . contradictory grounds for the decision;
                                                                               2.   use of documents not made available to the
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by SECIL —                                       applicant;
Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA against the
            Commission of the European Communities                             3 . lack of correspondence between the documents on
                           ( Case T-62/95 )                                         which the statement of objections is based and
                             ( 95 /C 137/61 )                                       those on which the decision is based ;
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             4 . erroneous assessment of the evidence;
An action against the Commission of the European                               5 . inadequacy and inconsistency of the evidence on
                                                                                which the Commission 's decision is based .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
1995 by SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA,                     III. Erroneous classification of the facts for legal purposes
whose registered office is at Outao, Concelho de Setubal,                      in the light of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, resulting
represented by Nuno Mimoso Ruiz, of the Portuguese Bar,                        in :
whose Chambers are at 63/6 Rua Castilho, 1250 Lisbon,
with an address for service in Luxemboug at the Chambers                       1 . simultaneously charging a European association
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                                                       ( Cembureau ), national associations belonging to
                                                                                Cembureau ( in the case of Portugal, the ATIC ) and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                        undertakings belonging to those national
                                                                                associations ( in the case of ATIC : CIMPOR and
— annul the Commission decision of 30 November 1994                                 SECIL ) with the same infringement; that threefold
      ( IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ) in its entirety so far                      charge in respect of the same infringement is also in
     as it concerns the applicant, and consequently annul the                       breach of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty;
      fine imposed on the applicant,
                                                                               2 . breach of the principle 'non bis in idem '.
— reduce the fine imposed on SECIL, should it decide that
      it is inappropriate to annul the Commission decision in
     its entirety so far as it concerns the applicant,                   IV. Defects in fixing the amount of the fines , arising
                                                                               from :
— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs .
                                                                               1 . general infringement of the principles of equal
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 treatment and proportionality;
The applicant relies on the following pleas :                                  2 . erroneous assessment of the subjective and
                                                                                objective gravity of the infringement;
   I. Infringement of procedural rules and of the rights of
         the defence , arising from :                                          3 . erroneous assessment of the duration of the
                                                                                infringement.
         1 . partial notification of the charges;
         2 . general and non-specific nature of the charges;


title: Case T-68/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Limitation period — Proof of the infringement)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Stempher and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher v Commission
   (Case T-68/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Limitation period - Proof of the infringement)
   2012/C 6/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stempher BV (Rijssen, Netherlands) and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV (Rijssen) (represented by: J. de Pree and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part and for amendment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it concerns Stempher BV and Koninklijke Verpakkingsindustrie Stempher CV;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-151/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público
   (Case C-151/15)
   (2015/C 205/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL

      Defendant: Ministério Público

      Questions referred

               i)

               Is the concept of the communication of works to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 (1) to be interpreted as encompassing the transmission of broadcast works in commercial premises such as bars, cafes, restaurants or other such establishments with similar characteristics, via television receiving apparatus, where the transmission of such works is amplified by speakers or amplifiers, thus constituting, in that context, a new use of copyright-protected works?

               ii)

               Does the use of speakers and/or amplifiers, that is, technical means other than television broadcast reception equipment, to amplify broadcast sound have any affect on the answer to the first question?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Joined Cases C-10/16 to C-12/16: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Italy) — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Decision to refer — Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context — Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova, Italy) — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16)
   (Joined Cases C-10/16 to C-12/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Decision to refer - Insufficient information regarding the legal and factual context - Insufficient information regarding the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling for the purposes of resolving a dispute in the main proceedings - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 063/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ignazio Messina & C. SpA

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova (C-10/16), Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Genova (C-11/16), Autorità portuale di Genova (C-12/16)

      Operative part of the order

   The requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Court, Genoa, Italy), by decisions of 11 December 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case F-132/12: Action brought on 7 November 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/73

         Action brought on 7 November 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-132/12)
   2013/C 26/152
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the application made under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations for compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicants as a result of the murder of a member of their family, an official of the Commission, and his wife.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 July 2012, notified on 31 July 2012;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 463 050 to each of the successors of the murdered official as compensation for the non-material harm suffered by them;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 308 700 to the first applicant as compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 308 700 to the second applicant as compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 154 350 to the third applicant as compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 154 350 to the fourth applicant as compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 574 000 to the successors of the murdered official in respect of their pain and suffering;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-586/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/15

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
      (Case C-586/14)
      (2015/C 107/21)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curtea de Apel Cluj

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Vasile Budișan

         Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

         Questions referred

                  1)

                  In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles coming from another Member State of the European Union, where that tax does not apply to the registration of domestic motor vehicles, upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, in respect of which such a tax or a similar tax has already been paid, where the amount of such a residual tax incorporated into the value of the motor vehicles on the domestic market is lower than the new tax?

                  2)

                  In the light of Emergency Government Order No 9/2013 and the purpose of the tax provided for thereunder, must Article 110 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State of the European Union from establishing a tax on pollutant emissions, applicable upon the registration of motor vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, but which, in the case of domestic motor vehicles, is payable only upon the transfer of ownership of such vehicles, the result being that a foreign vehicle cannot be used unless the tax is paid, but a domestic vehicle can be used for an unlimited time without the tax being paid, until the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, if ever, followed by its registration in the name of the new owner?


title: Case C-144/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
2.6.2001                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 161/11
Action brought on 27 March 2001 by the Commission                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                       —     Declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to
                                                                             supplies, intra-Community acquisitions or importations
                          (Case C-140/01)
                                                                             of two or three-wheel vehicles whose cylinder capacity is
                                                                             less than 50 cubic centimetres and which fall within the
                          (2001/C 161/20)                                    legal definition of a moped, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth
                                                                             VAT Directive (1).
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
represented by B. Mongin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998                 The Commission cannot accept, in the absence of any legal
      on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (1),           basis, the Kingdom of Spain’s argument that:
      alternatively to adopt the measures necessary in order to
      comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under the said directive and under        (a)   mopeds are used by social groups with lower purchasing
      the EC Treaty;                                                         power, for which reason it is appropriate to apply the
                                                                             criteria ‘cultural or social services’.
(2) order the Belgian Government to pay the costs.
                                                                       (b) the mopeds at issue, by reason of their specific technical
                                                                             characteristics, are not able to compete with other
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              vehicles with a different configuration and greater cylin-
                                                                             der capacity and therefore competition is not distorted
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                   when a reduced rate of VAT is applied to them.
in Case C-132/01; the time-limit for transposition prescribed
by Article 14(1) of the directive expired on 1 July 1998.
                                                                       The alleged absence of any distortion of competition is
                                                                       completely irrelevant as regards the case provided for in
(1) OJ L 144, 15.5.1998, p. 1.
                                                                       Annex H, to which Article 12(3)(a) refers. If account is taken
                                                                       of the fact that it is in the nature of an exception, the power
                                                                       conferred by the Sixth Directive to apply reduced rates may be
                                                                       used only restrictively in respect of the categories of goods and
                                                                       services listed in Annex H. That prevents the exception or
                                                                       derogation to the rule concerning the normal rate of tax being
                                                                       extended (by means of assimilation, broad interpretation or
                                                                       analogy) to other categories of goods or services from those
                                                                       specifically and exhaustively listed in Annex H. In the present
Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission of                   case the reduced rate applied to mopeds is totally contrary to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                  the Directive.
                          (Case C-144/01)
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonis-
                          (2001/C 161/21)                                  ation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                           — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                           assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Diaz-Llanos La Roche and Mr Gómez de la
Cruz Talegón, whose address for service in Luxembourg is that
of Mr Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C2/254, Kirchberg.


title: Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Comité d'Entreprise de la Société Française de Production and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-189/97)

text:
C 271 /20             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 9 . 97
meeting at which the measures proposed by the                           The applicants are of the view that they are representative
Commission's services were discussed and, presumably,                   organizations and recognized workers' representatives for
voted on indicates that those present included not only                 the purposes of French law and, accordingly, able to
representatives of the Ministries but also representatives of           defend the interests of the undertaking's workers.
research institutes with an interest in receiving financing.
                                                                        They maintain that the contested decision is vitiated by a
O OJ L 334, 22 . 12 . 1994, p . 59 .
                                                                        defective statement of reasons, inadequate description, an
                                                                        error of fact and by misuse of powers, inasmuch as they
                                                                        describe the payments as aid and, in the alternative,
                                                                        inasmuch as they describe them as aid as a whole and
                                                                        without distinction .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Comité d'Entreprise                   The decision does not provide an adequate statement of
de la Société Française de Production and Others against                reasons or grounds as regards trade between Member
       the Commission of the European Communities                       States being affected within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 )
                         ( Case T-l 89/97)                              of the EC Treaty.
                           ( 97/C 271 /32 )
                                                                        In the alternative and in the event that the description as
                                                                        aid is upheld, the applicants claim that it is very difficult
                (Language of the case: French)                          to read the contested decision with respect to whether, in
                                                                        the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                        payments in issue are lawful, since most of its reasons are
An action against the Commission of the European                        considered to be confidential . With regard to whether, in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( d ) of the EC Treaty, the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                    payments in issue are lawful, the decision is contradictory
by the Comite d'Entreprise de la Societe Fran^aise de                   and again gives an inadequate statement of reasons .
Production, whose registered office is at Bry-sur-Marne
( France ), the Syndicat National de Radio-Diffusion et de
Television SNRT-CGT, the Syndicat Unifie de Radio et de                 Finally, the applicants state that the contested decision is
Television SURT-CFDT, the Syndicat National Force                       based exclusively on criteria of an economic nature
Ouvriere de Radio-Diffusion et de Television and the                    comparing operating costs without taking account of the
Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel SNEA                    social and cultural impact of the decisions taken.
CFE-CGC, all having their registered offices in Paris,                  According to the case-law of the Court, the Commission
represented by Helene Masse-Dessen, Avocat at the                       should have, at the very least, examined such criteria .
Conseil d'Etat and at the Cour de Cassation, Paris, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 (') OJ L 95 , 10 . 4 . 1997, p . 19 .
Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande-Duchesse
Charlotte .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Jean-Francois
— annul the contested decision,                                         Aguinaga and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs and, pursuant                                              ( Case T-199/97 )
     to Article 87 ( 3 ) and 91b of the Rules of Procedure,                                           97/C 271 /33 )
     order it to pay each of the applicants the equivalent of
     ECU 20 000 in French francs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
The     contested     decision       declared    unlawful     and       Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
incompatible with the common market aid amounting to                    by Jean-Francois Aguinaga, residing in Brussels, Robert
FF 1,110 billion, granted during the period from 1993 to                Donkers, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ) and Patricia
1996 to the Societe de Production Audiovisuelle, a French               Mauguin, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
production company, on the ground that it was allocated                 Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in breach of the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 3 )             Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
of the EC Treaty (').                                                   Rue de Cessange .


title: Case F-57/10: Action brought on 14 July 2010 — Stefano Pedeferri and Others v European Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/36

         Action brought on 14 July 2010 — Stefano Pedeferri and Others v European Commission
   (Case F-57/10)
   2011/C 55/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Stefano Pedeferri (Sangiano, Italy) and Others (represented by: G. Vistoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Declaration of the applicants’ status of employee of the European Commission and their reinstatement on the staff of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by each of them.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Decide and declare that the employment relationship of the applicants was established in clear breach of Law No 1369/60 of the Italian State and, consequently, declare that each of the employment relationships of the applicants was as an employee of the European Commission under the appropriate contractual, remunerative and social security conditions for the duties carried out, for each of the applicants, from the date of the commencement of those duties or such other date as may be decided in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the European Commission to reinstate the applicants on the staff of the Joint Research Centre in Ispra under the applicable rules and provisions as to contributions and social security;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicants everything owed to them as employees of the Joint Research Centre, paying, in addition, the difference in social security and health insurance payments, in the amount required by the outcome of this case, commensurate with the regulatory and financial status of employees of the European Union performing the tasks of an auxiliary member of staff employed in security;

               —

               Grant each of the applicants, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage a sum equal to 50 % of the amount owed to them on the grounds set out above, which should be no less than EUR 50 000.


title: Case T-204/06: Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/51

         Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)
   (Case T-204/06)
   (2006/C 224/107)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE (Tavros, Greece) (represented by: P. Kanellopoulos, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG (Zürich, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision rendered by the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in its ruling No R0540/2005-2 dated June 8, 2006;

               —

               dismiss the opposition No B 562 423 brought by Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG against the registration of the Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ΔEΛTA with design’ No 2 474 674;

               —

               order that the Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ΔEΛTA with design’ No 2 474 674 of the applicant be accepted;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘milko ΔΕΛΤΑ’ for goods in class 30 (milk with cocoa) — application No 2 474 674

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG

      Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘MILKA’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the obvious and large differences of the two marks are sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion. According to the applicant, the two conflicting trade marks create overall a very different visual, phonetic and conceptual impression, especially when taking the second word ‘ΔEΛTA’ into consideration.


title: Case C-205/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union — Investment agreements entered into by the Republic of Austria with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cape Verde, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-205/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC - Failure to adopt appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of the bilateral agreements entered into with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union - Investment agreements entered into by the Republic of Austria with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cape Verde, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey)
   2009/C 102/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, B. Martenczuk and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and G. Thallinger, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, K. Szíjjártó and M. Fehér, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to eliminate the incompatibilities with the EC Treaty of bilateral agreements concluded with third countries before accession of the Member State to the Communities — Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Austria with the Republic of Korea, Cape Verde, China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and Turkey

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements entered into with the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cape Verde, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Reutlingen by judgment of that court of 19 August 1996 in the criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir (Case C-291/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 318/5
      Article 3(1 ) precludes the registration of generic names .       by the Commission of the European Communities,
      In order to establish whether a name is generic,                  represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, member of the
      particular account is to be taken of the existing situation       Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      in the Member State in which the name originates, the             Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
      existing situation in other Member States, and the                member of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      relevant national or Community laws . 'Feta ' has been
      produced in Denmark since 1951 . Since 1963 rules have            The Applicant claims that the Court should :
      governed its production . 'Feta' was known and
      produced in the Community before Greece's accession.              — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      Danish 'feta ' was exported to Greece as ' feta ' until Greek            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      rules on ' feta ' were introduced in 1987 . A number of                  Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993
      other Member States including, at all events, besides                    introducing minimum Community measures for the
      Denmark, Germany, France and Finland, produce ' feta '.                  control of certain fish diseases (') and Council Directive
      Moreover, since 1975 'feta' has been covered by various                  93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993 amending Directive
      Community rules . When the Council Regulation was                        91 /67/EEC concerning the animal health conditions
      issued, ' feta' was being lawfully produced and marketed                 governing the placing on the market of aquaculture
      in many Member States .                                                  animals and products ( 2 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under those Directives and under the Treaty
— The registration of 'feta' as a protected designation of                     establishing the European Community,
      origin is, moreover, contrary to the provisions in
      Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty. Under the Court's                      and
      case-law, there must be a geographical link between the
      designation and the region before a designation of origin         — order Ireland to pay the costs .
      can lawfully be protected. The region in question may
      not be an entire country and the designation must not be          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
      used to protect products indiscriminately, whatever
      their origin .                                                    Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty provides that Directives shall be
                                                                        binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member
— In adopting Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/86                   State to which they are addressed . Article 5 of the Treaty
      the   Commission         has  exceeded  the   limits    of its    provides that Member States shall take all appropriate
      discretionary powers .                                            measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
                                                                        fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
                                                                        resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
— Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 is, in respect                Community.
      of 'feta', contrary to the principle of proportionality.
      Protection of Greek feta could be achieved by less                Directives 93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC provide that Member
      onerous means . The Commission regulation is,                     States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
      moreover, contrary to the principle of equal treatment            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
       because 'feta' is a generic name which should be treated         Directives not later than 1 July 1994, and that they shall
      in the same way as other generic names .                          forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
— Lastly, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96, the                 The Commission has not received any information
       Commission has acted in breach of its duty of fairness,          concerning measures taken by Ireland to comply with the
       since it disregarded considerable opposition on the part         Directives and has received no official reply to its letter of
       of several Member States .                                       formal notice or its reasoned opinion .
                                                                         ( 1 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 23 .
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                        Reutlingen by judgment of that court of 19 August 1996 in
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Martino Grado and Shahid
Action brought on 3 September 1996 by the Commission                                                       Bashir
          of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                ( Case C-291/96 )
                           ( Case C-290/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/09 )
                             ( 96/C 318/08 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                European Communities by judgment of the Amtsgericht
Justice of the European Communities on 3 September 1996                  ( Local Court ), Reutlingen, of 19 August 1996 , which was
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
 received at the Court Registry on 3 September 1996, for a              Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir on the following                                           European Communities
 question:                                                                                ( Case C-293/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/11 )
 Is it compatible with European Community law or is it
 contrary to the prohibition on discrimination laid down in
 Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union for a
 Staatsanwalt ( Public Prosecutor ) expressly to refuse to use          An action against the Commission of the European
 the courtesy title 'Herr' in an application, which he has              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 drafted and subsequently placed before the court for                   European Communities on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
 signature, for a summary punishment order in the case of a             Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder, of the
 foreign employee ( for the purposes of Articles 48 to 51 of the        Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and
Treaty on European Union ) from another Member State of                 Dr Alfred Dittrich, of the Federal Ministry of Justice,
the European Union, particularly where this is contrary to              D-53175 Bonn .
the custom of the Staatsanwaltschaft ( Public Prosecutor's
 Office ) and to the Staatsanwalt's own usual practice ?
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare void Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
                                                                            ( EC ) No 1 107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                   geographical indications and designations of origin
Diisseldorf made by order of that court of 14 August 1996                   under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
in the case of Goritz Intransco International GmbH v.                       Regulation ( EEC) No 2081 /92 (') in so far as it is laid
                     Hauptzollamt Diisseldorf                               down in the Annex thereto that for cheeses from Greece
                          ( Case C-292/96 )                                 the designation ' feta ' is to be registered as a protected
                                                                            designation of origin (PDO ) in the 'Register of protected
                             96/C 318/ 10 )
                                                                            designations of origin and protected geographical
                                                                            indications' maintained by the Commission,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Senate of the
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) Diisseldorf of 14 August               — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                         proceedings.
4 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Goritz Intransco International GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
( Principal Customs Office ) Diisseldorf on the following
questions :                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 1 . Is Article 76 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                    The designation 'feta' does not constitute a designation of
      Code ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 398 et seq. of            origin within the meaning of Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council
      Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2454/93 laying                   Regulation (EEC ) No 2081 /92 (2 ). ' Feta ' is not a
      down provisions for the implementation of Council                geographical name . Nor is it a traditional name designating
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 establishing the                   an agricultural product or foodstuff originating in a specific
      Community Customs Code ( 2 ), the legal basis for grant          region or place; cheeses marketed under the name ' feta ' have
      of 'authorized consignor' status, or is such                      been produced for a long time in numerous countries
      authorization, pursuant to Article 76 ( 4 ) of Regulation        outside Greece, for example Denmark, Germany, France ,
      ( EEC ) No 2913/92, to be based only on the said                 the Balkans, Iran and the USA. Moreover, feta cheeses are
      Article 398 et seq.}                                             not products, the quality or characteristics of which are
                                                                       essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical
2 . Does Article 398 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93                  environment with its inherent natural and human factors
      preclude authorization as an 'authorized consignor'              and the production, processing and preparation of which
      where, as a result of goods having already been                  take place in a defined geographical area . According to the
      presented to customs, the exemption from the                     specification submitted by the competent Greek body, the
      obligation to present them is no longer possible ?               administrative district of Lesbos is the only possible area of
                                                                       origin in the Aegean Sea ; pursuant to Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             No 2019/93 ( 3 ) Community law provides for aid for the
( 2 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                           production of feta on such islands as are not referred to in
                                                                       the abovementioned specification . The Federal Government
                                                                       takes the view that ' feta ' is a generic name which by virtue of
                                                                       Article 17 ( 2 ), third sentence, of Regulation No 2081/92


title: Case C-136/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi, established in Ispra, against the order made on 17 January 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 150/17
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra Snc dei
                                                                          Fratelli Rossi, represented by Francandrea Venuto, of the Busto
Pleas and principal arguments                                             Arsizio Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                          Mr Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaïde.
(a)   Article 94 of Royal Decree No 1127 of 29 June 1939
      prevents industrial property consultants properly pursu-            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
      ing their profession in other Member States but not
      entered on the requisite register in Italy from acting,
                                                                          —     Set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
      occasionally and on a temporary basis, as agents in                       Instance contested in these proceedings:
      dealings with the Patent Office on behalf of clients who
      approach them for that purpose.
                                                                                —     Find and declare that the abovementioned order was
      In the Commissions’s view, that requirement is contrary                         made in breach of Article 111, Chapter II, of the
      to Article 49 of the EC Treaty: although it is true that, in                    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of
      the absence of harmonisation, Member States are in                              the European Communities;
      principle competent to define the requirements for access
      to the practice of an activity, that does not mean that                   —     In any event reject the objection raised by the
      they are released from the requirement of upholding the                         Commission of the European Communities before
      fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in                               the Court of First Instance of the European Com-
      particular as provided by Article 49.                                           munities that the action is time-barred;
(b) For entry on the register of patent consultants authorised                  —     In any event find and declare that the application
      to practise in Italy, Article 2 of Ministerial Decree 342/95                    originating the proceedings before the Court of First
      imposes the further requirement of having a residence or                        Instance of the European Communities in Case
      a professional office in Italy, except in the case of citizens                  T-124/99 is admissible;
      of States which allow Italian citizens to be entered on the
      corresponding registers without fulfilling that require-            —     Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the
      ment.                                                                     applicant at first instance:
      It is clear that a consultant intending to practise alone in              —     Find and declare that the EAEC is liable under the
      Italy would find it very difficult to establish a professional                  second paragraph of Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty
      practice in that country. He would feel unable to proceed,                      on the basis of the facts and documents relied on by
      for which reason in this case too that there is clearly an                      the applicant in those proceedings, which are to be
      unjustified obstacle to observance of the principle of                          deemed to be reproduced in their entirety in this
      freedom to provide services.                                                    notice of appeal;
                                                                                —     Consequently, order the EAEC, represented by the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities, to pay
                                                                                to the persons vested with legal representation of
                                                                                the appellant, Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi,
                                                                                the principal sum of ITL 1 245 000 000 , adjusted
                                                                                by way of monetary revaluation, with interest
Appeal brought on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra                                   accruing thereon until due payment, or such other
Snc dei Fratelli Rossi, established in Ispra, against the                             sum as may be held to be fair;
order made on 17 January 2001 by the Second Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         —     The decision given should be enforceable and
ties in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc dei                                include an order that the defendant pay the costs at
Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,                                  both instances;
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities                                          —     By way of preparatory inquiry, grant the preparatory
                                                                                measures requested by the applicant before the
                         (Case C-136/01 P)                                            Court of First Instance.
                          (2001/C 150/32)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the order made on 17 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             The appellant submits that the order made by the Court of
Communities in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc                 First Instance is vitiated for the following reasons:
dei Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Communities,                —     Failure to hear the views of the Advocate General.
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
—     The Court of First Instance decided to rule on the                Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission of
      admissibility of the application without appraising all the       the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
      relevant matters of fact and of law.
—     The Court of First Instance infringed upon the applicant’s                                   (Case C-143/01)
      right of action by failing to take into consideration
      whether or not it was possible for the parties to have
      proper access to the facts relevant to the case, which were                                  (2001/C 150/34)
      in fact not available until 15 May 1995 for objective
      reasons and because of the conduct of the Community.
      The appellant also alleges that the limitation period laid        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      down by the abovementioned provision, to which there              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
      are no exceptions, was improperly curtailed.                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Mr Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and Mr Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz Talegón, whose address for service in Luxembourg is that
                                                                        of Mr Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C2/254, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 28 March 2001 by the Commission of                    —     Declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                       supplies, intra-Community acquisitions or importations
                                                                              of liquified petroleum gas, the Kingdom of Spain has
                         (Case C-142/01)                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth
                                                                              VAT Directive (1)
                         (2001/C 150/33)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Antonio Aresu, acting as               Pleas in law and main arguments
Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The Commission does not concur with the arguments put
                                                                        forward by the Spanish authorities that butane gas is a fuel
                                                                        similar to natural gas, for which reason it should be subject to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force Article 12(1) of Law
                                                                        the same tax system. Article 12(3)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive
      No 81 of 8 March 1991, which makes the recognition of
                                                                        constitutes an exception and does not allow for application by
      ski monitors’ diplomas subject to a reciprocal condition,
                                                                        analogy.
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Council Directive 92/51/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
      on a second general system for the recognition of
      professional education and training to supplement Direc-          Even if a supply of butane gas (sucAh gas being the fuel used
      tive 89/48/EEC (2); and                                           by social groups with limited economic means), could be
                                                                        considered as falling within the ambit of ‘cultural or social
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      services’ for the purposes of Annex H, to which Article 12(3)(a)
                                                                        refers, the application of a reduced rate of VAT would lack,
                                                                        even in that case, any legal basis. Paragraph 14 of Annex H to
                                                                        the directive states that such supplies of goods or services must
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         be made by ‘organisations recognised as charities by Member
                                                                        States and engaged in welfare or social security’.
Article 12(1) of Law No 81 of 8 March 1991 is incompatible
with Directive 92/51/EEC given that it imposes a condition of
reciprocity in order to obtain recognition of a diploma for ski
monitors obtained in another Member State, thereby adding               (1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonis-
to the directive a condition which it does not provide for.                 ation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                            — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                            assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.
(2) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.


title: Case C-367/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2012 — Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/13

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2012 — Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher
      (Case C-367/12)
      (2012/C 331/20)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

         Additional parties: Tanja Lang, Susanna Zehetner

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the rule of law considerations inherent in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or the considerations of transparency inherent in Article 49 TFEU preclude a national provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the Apothekengesetz (Law on pharmacies; ApG) at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the condition whether there is a need to establish a new public pharmacy is not specified at least in essence in the legislation itself but its elaboration is left in considerable respects to the national courts, since it cannot be excluded that a scheme of that kind affords a significant competitive advantage to interested parties from Austria, individually and as a whole, over nationals from other Member States?

                  2.

                  If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the ApG, which in relation to the crucial condition whether a need is deemed to exist sets a rigid threshold of 5 500 persons without allowing for any departure from that general rule, since de facto under a scheme of that kind it does not appear possible to ensure (without more) the achievement in a consistent manner of the legislative objective pursued, in terms of paragraphs 98 to 101 of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-570/07 (1) and C-571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez?

                  3.

                  If Question 2 is also answered in the negative: Do Article 49 TFEU and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the ApG which has been interpreted, as result of the case-law of the highest national courts on the notion of assessment of a need, to include additional detailed criteria — such as whether an application has priority in time, the blocking effect of an existing application in relation to subsequent applications, the two-year lockout period following the rejection of an application, criteria for determining the number of ‘permanent residents’ and ‘incoming users’ and for allocating the customer base in the event of an overlap between the 4-km zone surrounding each of two or more pharmacies, etc. — since, as a result, it is not possible to ensure that, as a general rule, the provision will be applied in a manner that is foreseeable and calculable and within a reasonable period and, hence, the legislative provision cannot be considered appropriate, in fact, to ensure the achievement in a consistent manner of the legislative objective pursued (see paragraphs 98 to 101 and 114 to 125 of the Court’s judgment in Blanco Pérez) and/or the provision of an adequate pharmaceutical service must be regarded as de facto not ensured and/or discrimination must be presumed as between interested parties from Austria amongst themselves or between them and interested parties from other Member States?

         (1)  Judgment of 1 June 2010 in Case C-570/07 (ECR 2010, I-4629).