title: Case C-411/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Madrid, Spain, made by order of that court of  14 November 2005  in Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA, José María Sanz Corral and Martin Tebar Less

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Madrid, Spain, made by order of that court of 14 November 2005 in Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA, José María Sanz Corral and Martin Tebar Less
   (Case C-411/05)
   (2006/C 36/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 33, Madrid, Spain, of 14 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Félix Palacios de la Villa and Cortefiel Servicios SA, José María Sanz Corral and Martin Tebar Less on the following questions:
   Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of age and is laid down in Article 13 EC and Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, (1) preclude a national law (specifically, the first paragraph of the Single Transitional Provision of Law 14/2005 on clauses in collective agreements concerning the attainment of normal retirement age) pursuant to which compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements are lawful, where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers must have reached normal retirement age and must have fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation of the Spanish State for entitlement to draw a retirement pension under their contribution regime?
   In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:
   Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of age and is laid down in Article 13 EC and Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, require this court, as a national court, not to apply to this case the first paragraph of the Single Transitional Provision of Law 14/2005 cited above?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-561/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)
   (Case T-561/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 13/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case C-363/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London by Direction of that court of  19 September 2005  in 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust Companies v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London by Direction of that court of 19 September 2005 in 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust Companies v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-363/05)
   (2005/C 330/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Direction of the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London, of 19 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1) J.P. Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust plc 2) The Association of Investment Trust Companies and Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs, on the following questions:

               1.

               Are the words ‘special investment funds’ in Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive (1) capable of including closed-ended investment funds, such as ITCs?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the phrase ‘as defined by Member States’ in Article 13B(d)(6):

                           a.

                           allow Member States to select certain of the ‘special investment funds’ within their jurisdiction to benefit from the exemption of the supply of management services and exclude others from the exemption, or

                           b.

                           does it mean that the Member States are to identify those funds within their jurisdiction which fall within the definition of ‘special investment funds’ and that the benefit of exemption should extend to all such funds?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is that Member States can select which ‘special investment funds’ benefit from the exemption, how do the principles of fiscal neutrality, equal treatment and the prevention of distortion of competition affect the exercise of that discretion?

               4.

               Does Article 13B(d)(6) have direct effect?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1


title: Case T-172/01: Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 317/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.11.2001
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 6 July 2001                                 —     Annul the contested act;
in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          —     Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary                 —     Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;
staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking                —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
           in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)
                          (2001/C 317/51)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                      The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member                 of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European                  to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented               alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for                 the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of                  In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative              defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary                 not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First                    produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-               maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-174/01)
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court
            of Justice of the European Communities                                                 (2001/C 317/53)
                          (Case T-172/01)                                 (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                          (2001/C 317/52)                                                            made: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
of the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M,                         Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
lawyers.                                                                  before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).


title: Case T-330/11: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — MasterCard and Others v European Commission (Actions for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — Documents drawn up by a third party — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/24

         Order of the General Court of 25 January 2012 — MasterCard and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-330/11) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods - Documents drawn up by a third party - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 89/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MasterCard Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States), MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington), MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission to refuse the applicants access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the ‘costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-24/09: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Biocaps v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Existence of the addressee of the decision — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/44

         Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Biocaps v Commission
   (Case T-24/09) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Existence of the addressee of the decision - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
   2010/C 221/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Biocaps (Orsay, France) (represented by: Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart van Woerden and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6524 of 29 October 2008, in Case COMP/39510, ordering Laboratoire Champagnat Desmounlins Philippakis, and all of the entities controlled directly or indirectly by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2002 L 1, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law;

               2.

               Biocaps is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 July 1997 in Case T-24/96: U v. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/15
(Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca Vila Costa ) —                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty for                                          of 23 July 1997
compensation for the damage alleged to have been
suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay in                  in Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
collection by the carrier designated by the Commission of                for the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')
the olive oil made available by the applicant under a                                 (Case not proceeding to judgment)
tendering procedure for the free supply thereof to the
people of Georgia and Armenia — the Court of First                                                  ( 97IC 318/31 )
Instance ( Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, made an order on 18 July 1997, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                       In Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke, an official of the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
 1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.             Training ( Cedefop ), resident at Eischen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Frank Montag, of the Cologne and Brussels
2 . The applicant shall hear the costs.                                Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       Training ( Cedefop ) ( Agent: Bertrand Wagenbaur) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of 1 . the decision of 5 April
                                                                        1996, as amended by the decision of 22 April 1996 and
                                                                       2 . the decision of 21 May 1996, whereby the defendant
                                                                       rejected an application for the extension of the applicant's
                                                                       secondment to the Statistical Office of the European
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities in Luxembourg and ordered his posting to
                                                                       Thessaloniki — the Court of First Instance             ( Fifth
                           of 23 July 1997
                                                                       Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
       in Case T-24/96: U v. European Centre for the                   J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
      Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')               an order on 23 July 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                       as follows :
              (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                            ( 97/C 318/30 )
                                                                       1 . There is no need for the action to proceed to
                                                                            judgment.
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and
In Case T-24/96 : U, an official of the European Centre for                 those incurred by the defendant in the interlocutory
the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ),                         proceedings and these proceedings.
residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels, with an address for                (') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training ( Cedefop) ( Agent: Bertrand
Wagenbaur) — application for annulment of Cedefop's
decision of 8 February 1996 rejecting a request for an
extension of the applicant's secondment to the office of
the Commission of the European Communities in Berlin                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and ordering his posting to Thessaloniki — the Court of                                           of 24 July 1997
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Garcfa
Valdecasas, President; J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;                 in Case T-573/93 ( 129): Manuel Francisco Caballero
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 July 1997, the                 Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (')
operative part of which is as follows :                                                 (Judgments — Interpretation)
                                                                                ( 97IC 318/32 )
I. There is no need to give a decision on the application.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2 . The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the defendant in the
     proceedings for the interim relief and in the present             In Case T-573/93 ( 129 ): Manuel Francisco Caballero
     proceedings.                                                      Montoya, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia
                                                                       Bassas, of the Madrid Bar, against Commission of the
H OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
                                                                       and Maria Isabel Jimenez Rojas ) — application for
                                                                       interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First


title: Case C-530/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-530/06)
   (2007/C 42/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementation of Directive 2003/41/EC expired on 23 September 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 235, p.10.


title: Case T-305/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/47
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant in this case                  Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:
                                                                          Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this case
Mark or sign cited in         The German word mark ‘SOLEVI-               munity trade mark:
opposition:                   TA’ for goods in Class 32
                                                                          Community trade mark          The word/figurative mark ‘Opus-
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                 sought:                       Dent’ for goods and services in
sition Division:                                                                                Classes 9, 10 and 42 (inter alia,
                                                                                lasers, not for medical purposes;
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal                                       medical, dental and aesthetic
Appeal:                                                                                lasers; medical and dental treat-
                                                                                ment)         —         Application
Pleas in law:                 The applicant has submitted                                               No 1331230
                              adequate evidence of genuine use
                              of the opposing mark;                       Proprietor of mark or         Dornier Medizintechnik GmbH
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
                              —     Infringement of the maxim             sition proceedings:
                                    of party disposition laid
                                    down in the second sentence
                                    of Article 74(1) of Regu-             Mark or sign cited in         The Community trade mark
                                    lation 40/94;                         opposition:                   ‘Opus’ for goods in Class 10 (inter
                                                                                alia, medical tables for examin-
                              —     Failure to respect the right to                                     ations and treatment, X-ray appar-
                                    be heard.                                                           atus and X-ray work stations)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         The opposition was upheld in
                                                                          sition Division:              respect of the goods ‘medical, den-
                                                                                tal and aesthetic lasers’ and reject-
                                                                                ed in respect of the remaining
                                                                                goods and services
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by OpusDent                            Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                          Appeal:
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                 No likelihood of confusion
                         (Case T-305/03)
                         (2003/C 275/79)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: German)
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Manel Camós
                                                                           Grau against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                        (Case T-309/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by OpusDent GmbH, Freising (Germany),
represented by P. Munzinger, lawyer. Dornier Medizintechnik                                       (2003/C 275/80)
GmbH, Weßling (Germany), was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 23 June 2003 of the Second Board              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      of Appeal of the defendant in Case R 579/2002-2;                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Manel Grau,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.            residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer.


title: Case C-212/03: Action brought on 15 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
5.7.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 158/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, Patents                   the Court should:
Court by order of that court dated 6 May 2003, in the
case of 1) Novartis AG 2) University College London
3) Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology against
Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks                   1.    declare that, by applying a prior authorisation procedure
                     for the United Kingdom                                     to personal imports, not effected by personal transport,
                                                                                of medicinal products lawfully prescribed in France,
                                                                                authorised under amended Directive 65/65/EEC (1)
                          (Case C-207/03)                                       (replaced by Directive 2001/83/EC) ( 2), both in France
                                                                                and in the Member State of the European Community
                          (2003/C 158/28)                                       where they are purchased, the French Republic has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty
                                                                                establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                     2.    declare that, by applying a prior authorisation procedure
Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, Patents Court                   to personal imports, not effected by personal transport,
dated 6 May 2003, which was received at the Court Registry                      of homeopathic medicinal products lawfully prescribed
on 14 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         in France and registered in a Member State of the
1) Novartis AG 2) University College London 3) Institute of                     European Community pursuant to Directive 92/73/
Microbiology and Epidemiology and Comptroller General of                        EEC (3) (replaced by Directive 2001/83/EC), the French
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom on                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28
the following questions:                                                        of the Treaty establishing the European Community;
1)     Is the date of the granting of a marketing authorisation
       in Switzerland, which is automatically recognised in
       Liechtenstein, to be considered as the first authorisation         3.    declare that, by applying a disproportionate prior author-
       to place a medicinal product on the market, for the                      isation procedure to personal imports, not effected by
       purpose of calculating the duration of a supplementary                   personal transport, of medicinal products lawfully pre-
       protection certificate as provided in Article 13 of Regu-                scribed in France, not authorised in that country but only
       lation 1768/92 ( 1) (as amended by the EEA Agreement)?                   in the Member State of the European Community where
                                                                                they are purchased, the French Republic has failed to
2)     Is a competent authority within the EEA obliged to rectify               fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty
       any existing supplementary protection certificates, the                  establishing the European Community;
       duration of which has been erroneously calculated?
                                                                          4.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concern-
     ing the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for
     medicinal products OJ L 182, 02.07.1992, p. 1.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 15 May 2003 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                          (Case C-212/03)                                 The Commission alleges the existence of measures having an
                                                                          effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports of
                                                                          medicinal products, consisting of the imposition of a prior
                          (2003/C 158/29)                                 authorisation procedure relating to the personal importation
                                                                          into France, not effected by personal transport, of lawfully
                                                                          prescribed medicinal products, in breach of Article 28 EC.
                                                                          Such authorisation is required by the articles of the French
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Public Health Code relating to the importation into French
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 May                    customs territory of medicinal products, including those
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       having the status of Community goods. In many cases, that
represented by H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,             prior authorisation procedure cannot be justified on the basis
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                of Article 30 EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              5.7.2003
The Commission considers that no argument justifies the                         medicinal products authorised in France or in the Member
existence of the prior authorisation procedure at issue. First, it              State of export or than in the case of homeopathic
cannot be justified by concern to ascertain that the medicinal                  medicinal products registered in a Member State. Never-
product has been manufactured according to the good prac-                       theless, while acknowledging that a prior authorisation
tices laid down by Community legislation. The imported                          procedure may be justified, in principle, in the case of
medicinal product has been authorised or registered in the                      personal imports of such products, that procedure should
Member State of export, which is responsible for ensuring                       be easily accessible, carried out within a reasonable period
compliance with those good practices. Any additional check                      and culminate in an authorisation for the importation of
carried out in France would be contrary to the principle of                     medicinal products not posing any risk to public health.
mutual recognition and the objective of ensuring the free                       However, the prior authorisation procedure applied by
movement of medicinal products. Secondly, with regard to                        France to personal imports of medicinal products does
possible justification on other grounds of protection of health,                not comply with those criteria and is therefore dispro-
it is necessary, in the Commission’s view, to distinguish                       portionate to the objective to be attained.
between three types of medicinal products:
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
—     medicinal products authorised pursuant to amended                       mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
      Directive 65/65, then pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC,                 ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
      both in France and in the Member State where they are                   Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
      purchased (or covered by an authorisation to place them            (2 ) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                              Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to
      on the Community market (marketing authorisation)).
                                                                              medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67).
      The French authorities have acknowledged that an import            (3 ) Council Directive 92/73/EC of 22 September 1992 widening
      authorisation was required in the case of personal import-              the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the
      ation of medicinal products covered by a marketing                      approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
      authorisation in France. However, in view of the advanced               administrative action relating to medicinal products and laying
      state of harmonisation achieved in the pharmaceutical                   down additional provisions on homeopathic medicinal products
      products sector, in that type of case important guarantees              (OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, p. 8).
      of protection of the health of patients are satisfied. In
      addition, there is the fact that importation will take place
      only following the issue of a lawful medical prescription
      and in quantities not exceeding the needs of the treatment.
      It follows that the prior authorisation procedure at issue
      is not justified.
—     homeopathic medicinal products registered in a Member
      State pursuant to Directive 92/73/EEC, replaced by
      Directive 2001/83/EC. When a homeopathic medicinal
      product is registered in a Member State, it does not in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
      principle pose any risk to health, especially given the fact       cassation (France), First Civil Chamber, by order of that
      that the rules on the manufacture, control and inspection          court of 6 May 2003 in the case of Syndicat professionnel
      of that type of medicinal product have been harmonised.            coordination des pêcheurs de l’Etang de Berre et de la
      In addition, Directive 92/73/EEC has liberalised patients’                        région against Électricité de France
      access to the medicinal products of their choice. A prior
      authorisation procedure for personal importation of
      registered homeopathic medicinal products is therefore                                         (Case C-213/03)
      manifestly unjustified.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/30)
—     medicinal products not authorised in France, but author-
      ised in the Member State where they are purchased. The
      prior authorisation procedure at issue does not constitute
      a measure necessary for the purpose of combating the
      risk of fraud or misuse of the marketing authorisation
      mechanism, since the general legislation making the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      importation of medicinal products to be marketed subject           European Communities by order of the Cour de cassation
      to prior authorisation, as well as the on-the-spot checks,         (Court of Cassation) (France), First Civil Chamber, received at
      are sufficient to combat illegal imports of medicinal              the Court Registry on 19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
      products. However, from the point of view of the                   in the case of Syndicat professionnel coordination des pêcheurs
      protection of public health, the case of imports relating          de l’Etang de Berre et de la région (Trade association coordinat-
      to medicinal products not authorised in France may                 ing fishermen of the Etang de Berre and the area) against
      justify a more qualified approach than the case of                 Electricité de France on the following questions:


title: Case T-484/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — CEWE Stiftung v OHIM (SMILECARD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SMILECARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/41

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — CEWE Stiftung v OHIM (SMILECARD)
      (Case T-484/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SMILECARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/49)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA, formerly CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2012 (Case R 2279/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SMILECARD as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders CEWE Stiftung & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-100/10: Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2012 — Nordzucker v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/69

         Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2012 — Nordzucker v Commission
   (Case T-100/10) (1)

   2013/C 26/135
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-149/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Scope — Concept of ‘seller’ — Intermediary — Exceptional circumstances)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — Sabrina Wathelet v Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL
   (Case C-149/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 1999/44/EC - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Scope - Concept of ‘seller’ - Intermediary - Exceptional circumstances))
   (2017/C 006/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sabrina Wathelet

      Defendant: Garage Bietheres & Fils SPRL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘seller’, for the purposes of Article 1(2)(c) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, must be interpreted as covering also a trader acting as intermediary on behalf of a private individual who has not duly informed the consumer of the fact that the owner of the goods sold is a private individual, which it is for the referring court to determine, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The above interpretation does not depend on whether the intermediary is remunerated for acting as intermediary

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


C 372/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
1.    In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses       The Commission claims that the Court should:
      excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
      their tenders explanations concerning components of the           —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle               Commission Directive 98/100/EC (1) of 21 December
      to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?             1998 amending Directive 92/76/EEC (2) recognising pro-
                                                                              tected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in
2.    Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining                   the Community, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
      automatically the threshold indicative of irregularity,                 its obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
      below which the validity of tenders falls to be verified, on
      the basis of an ad hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean,        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      so that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold
      in advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
      Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place
      at an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of          Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      an opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
      the envelopes and before the adoption of the measure              State to which they are addressed.
      excluding it, represent an obstacle to the application of
      Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                        Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
                                                                        States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
4.    Does a provision under which the contracting authority            particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
      may take account of explanations relating solely to the           of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
      economy of the construction method or the technical               of the Community.
      solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
      ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
      the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?              It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
5.    Does the exclusion of explanations relating to items for
      which minimum values can be inferred from official lists          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
      represent an obstacle to the application of Article 30(4)         has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
      of Directive 93/37?                                               directive fully into Greek law.
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the          (1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works            (2) OJ L 305, 21.10.1992, p. 12.
    contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-272/98 (1)
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                              Republic                                                           (2000/C 372/17)
                         (Case C-406/00)                                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-272/98: (reference for a preliminary
                         (2000/C 372/16)                                ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First
                                                                        Instance) No 35 Barcelona): Artel SA v Francisca Arencom
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the          Salazar.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 November
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,              (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de ]a Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/27

         Removal from the register of Case C-67/04 (1)

   (2006/C 36/55)

      Language of the case: Greek

   By order of 10 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-67/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-306/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany), lodged on 14 July 2006 — Deutsche Telekom AG v 01051 Telecom GmbH

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany), lodged on 14 July 2006 — Deutsche Telekom AG v 01051 Telecom GmbH
   (Case C-306/06)
   (2006/C 249/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

      Defendant: 01051 Telecom GmbH
   Question referred
   Is a national rule that payment preventing the occurrence of default by a debtor or terminating existing default on his part does not depend on the time when the amount is credited to the creditor's account but on the time when the debtor gives a transfer order that is covered by sufficient funds or a sufficient credit limit and is accepted by the bank compatible with Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions?

      (1)  OJ L 200, p. 35.


title: Case T-716/16: Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé Familiale v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/29

         Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé Familiale v Commission

   (Case T-716/16)
   (2016/C 462/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom), Pfizer Santé Familiale (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, barrister-at-law)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the Combined Nomenclature by failing to follow the precise order prescribed by the General Rules of interpretation in Chapter A of Part I of the Combined Nomenclature for the classification of goods.

               —

               The Commission committed an error of law by applying General Rule 3 in the classification of a good which is not prima facie classifiable under two or more headings of the Combined Nomenclature; and

               —

               the Commission committed a second error of law by applying General Rule 3(b) without applying General Rule 3(a), which gives priority to the classification under the more specific headings.


title: Case T-87/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurofast v Commission (Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted — Debit note — Set-off — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/48

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — Eurofast v Commission
   (Case T-87/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Subsidies - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted - Debit note - Set-off - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2016/C 156/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurofast SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, essentially, for suspension of operation of the set-off decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 addressed to the applicant and seeking recovery of EUR 69 923,68owed under a subsidy contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: OPINION 2/94 OF THE COURT of 28 March 1996 (Accession by the Community to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
            OPINION 2/94 OF THE COURT                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 28 March 1996                                                       ( Fifth Chamber )
(Accession by the Community to the Convention for the                                       of 7 March 1996
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)                 in Case C-118/94 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          ( 96/C 180/01 )                            the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ):
                                                                     Associazione Italiana per il World Wildlife Fund and Others
                                                                                v. Regione Veneto (')
The Court of Justice has received a request for an opinion,          (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild
lodged at the Registry of the Court on 26 April 1 994 ( 1 ),         birds — Hunting — Conditions for exercise of the Member
from the Council of the European Union pursuant to                                     States ' power to derogate)
Article 228 ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty on the following                                            ( 96/C 180/02 )
question :
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Italian)
'Would the accession of the European Community to the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 be compatible                        published in the European Court Reports)
with the Treaty establishing the European Community ?'
                                                                     In Case C-118 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
The Court composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,           of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Amministrativo
C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.            Regionale per il Veneto ( Regional Administrative Court for
Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, F. A.                 the Veneto Region, Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J.       proceedings pending before that court between
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.                    Associazione Italiana per il World Wildlife Fund, Ente
Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges, after                   Nazionale per le Protezione Animali , Lega per l'Ambiente —
hearing the views of First Advocate-General Tesauro and              Comitato Regionale, Lega Anti Vivisezione — Delegazione
Advocates-General Lenz, Jacobs, La Pergola, Cosmas,                  Regionale, Lega per l'Abolizione della Caccia, Federnatura
Léger, Elmer, Fennelly and Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer, gave the             Veneto , Italia Nostra — Sezione di Venezia and the Regione
following opinion :                                                  Veneto on the interpretation of Article 9 of Council
                                                                     Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
                                                                     of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 ), the Court ( Fifth
As Community law now stands, the Community has no                    Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the
competence to accede to the European Convention for the              Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.                 Gulmann ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1 996 in which it
(') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                    ruled that :
                                                                     Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979
                                                                     on the conservation of wild birds is to be interpreted as


title: Case C-432/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by order of 29 October 2001 in the appeal brought by Helmut Gunz

text:
C 3/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                    foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by order of                       human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
 29 October 2001 in the appeal brought by Helmut Gunz                     ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
                                                                          offence when marketing foodstuffs:
                       (Case C-432/01)                                    (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                        (2002/C 3/31)                                           inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
                                                                                effect;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (b) to refer to case histories, recommendations made by
European Communities by order of 29 October 2001 by                             doctors or medical experts’ reports;
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg
(Independent Administrative Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg),              (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
which was received at the Court Registry on 7 November                          tations of organs of the human body, pictures
2001 for a preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Helmut                   of members of the health-care professions or of
Gunz on the following questions:                                                sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
                                                                                to health-care activities?
1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
     of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the                 2.   Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC
     laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,                 preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to               circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
     the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European                  mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed
     Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of                       thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent
     20 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29; hereinafter                     federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is
     ‘the labelling Directive’), under which — subject to                 that the health-related information is consistent with
     Community provisions applicable to natural mineral                   protecting the consumer from being misled?
     waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses,
     the labelling and methods used may not attribute to any         (1) OJ L 33, p. 1.


title: Case C-476/04: Action brought on 12 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/32

         Action brought on 12 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-476/04)
   (2005/C 6/59)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande and Carmel O'Reilly, of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC (1) of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that directive.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 212 of 7.8.2001, p. 12.


title: Case C-500/09: Action brought on 2 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/22

         Action brought on 2 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-500/09)
   2010/C 37/27
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Triantafillou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by continuing to apply Ministerial Decision A1/44351/3608 of 12 October 2005, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under Directive 97/67/EC (1) (as amended), as they result in particular from Article 9(1) and (2);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Hellenic Republic is hindering the liberalisation of postal services, the objective of Directive 97/67, which provides in that connection for the grant of general authorisations and individual licences in an open manner and without discrimination.
   The Greek legislation requires of authorised carriers, when licences are issued for postal transport vehicles, that they should themselves be postal undertakings entered in the appropriate register as holders of a general authorisation. That necessitates radical restructuring of postal networks and makes it impossible for the principal undertakings to employ franchisees, unless they opt to convert themselves into undertakings leasing vehicles with the costs that that implies.
   Moreover, the Greek legislation allows the transport of heavy loads only by certain commercial vehicles, reserved to a regulated profession, which prevents other undertakings from providing the same service.
   The Hellenic Republic has not submitted sufficient justification for those restrictions.

      (1)  OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.


title: Actions brought on 24 December 1997 by SPRL Noël Boone and Others against Commission of the European Communities (Joined Cases T-620/97 to T-627/97)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/29
Further, the applicants allege, in support of their claims,        to be regarded as inappropriate, because they are limited
that the principles of proportionality, of the protection of       to a period of one year, and because the Regulation has no
legitimate expectations, fairness and proportionality have         binding effect on the Member States. Moreover, the action
been breached and that the right to property and freedom           envisaged by the Community was centred only on priority
to provide a service have been disregarded.                        regions. The applicants state in that connection that since
                                                                   the damage was definitive as at 1 January 1993, the date
                                                                   of publication of Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 rendered
                                                                   ineffective the few measures that were envisaged therein,
                                                                   since the undertakings were obliged to take the economic
                                                                   measures necessary, without receiving support, on that
Actions brought on 31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres             same date in order to limit their losses. The measures
and Others against Commission of the European                      proposed, whatever they might be, could be taken only a
     Communities and Council of the European Union                 long time after the requisite adoption of the restructuring
                                                                   measures.
            (Joined Cases T-615/97 to T-618/97)
                        (98/C 94/73)                               The applicants allege breach, so far as they are concerned,
                                                                   of the principle of the observance of acquired rights, the
                (Language of the case: French)                     principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection
                                                                   of legitimate expectations and the principle of non-
Actions against the Commission of the European                     discrimination.
Communities and the Council of the European Union
were brought before the Court of First Instance on                 The applicants state in particular in that connection that
31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres and Others,                    no initiative taken by the undertakings before 31 December
established in France, represented by Jean-FrancËois               1992 taking account of the disappearance of intra-
Bournilhas, of the Paris Bar, and Mark Clough, Solicitor,          Community customs traffic on 1 January 1993, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   particular the laying off of employees under the special
chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              social plan, could give effect to a regulation which was
                                                                   not to become known until 31 December 1992, that is to
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              say at the very time at which the harm accrued. Moreover,
should:                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 treats in the same way
                                                                   situations which differ considerably from one Member
Ð declare the defendants liable, for the purposes of the           State to another. Finally, that Regulation is discriminatory
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for the          as between those who took such action before January
    damage caused to their businesses as approved                  1993 and those who took it after its publication.
    customs agents as a result of the provisions adopted
    by the Council to ensure the free movement of goods            In the alternative, the applicants allege strict liability on
    throughout the internal market as from 1 January               the part of the Community, deriving from its failure to
    1993, without taking the measures necessary to                 ensure equal treatment in relation to charges imposed by
    safeguard the applicants' interests and as a result of         the public authorities. In their opinion, the intervention of
    the Commission's failure to propose and the Council's          the Community authorities can be deemed to constitute an
    failure to adopt the measures necessary legitimately to        expropriation, since the situation in which they find
    safeguard their rights,                                        themselves is worse than that which would derive from
                                                                   the economic risks associated with the economic sector
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to                    concerned.
    compensate each of the applicants for the said
    damage, and to pay interest at the rate of 8 % per             (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
    annum as from 1 January 1993,                                      on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
                                                                       internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, which are approved French customs                  Actions brought on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl
agents, criticise the Community institutions for failing to        Boone and Others against Commission of the European
take adequate measures to forestall the harm accruing to                                     Communities
them as a result of completion of the internal market                           (Joined Cases T-620/97 to T-627/97)
established by the Single European Act.
                                                                                (98/C 94/74)
The applicants claim that the only reaction on the part of
the Community authorities to the situation in which they                            (Language of the case: French)
found themselves is contained in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 (1). However,                 Actions against the Commission of the European
the measures with which that Regulation is concerned are           Communities were brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/30              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
Instance on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl Boone and                applicants were required, until the very eve of 1 January
Others, established in Belgium, represented by Pierre               1993, to carry on their activities in the same way, before
Cavenaile and Koenraad Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an           becoming subject to the entry into force of the new rules.
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                                  Finally, by adopting Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92, the
                                                                    Council failed entirely to take account of the location or
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance               size of the undertakings.
should:
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
                                                                        on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay a                   internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
    provisional sum, subject to increase or reduction in the        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3632/85 of 12 December 1985
    course of the proceedings, together with interest                   defining the conditions under which a person may be
    thereon at the rate of 8 % from 1 January 1993, the                 permitted to make a customs declaration (OJ L 350,
    date on which the damage actually occurred, until the               31.12.1992, p. 1).
    date of actual payment,
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    entirety of the costs.
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              against the European Investment Bank
                                                                                (Case T-7/98)
The applicants, which are Belgian customs agents, seek
compensation for damage suffered as a result of                                                (98/C 94/75)
completion of the internal market: the Community
institutions failed to adopt effective transitional measures                         (Language of the case: Italian)
to enable customs agents to adjust progressively to the
new requirements. In the applicants' view, the only                 An action against the European Investment Bank was
reaction on the part of the Community institutions is               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92,                   Communities on 3 January 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
published on 31 December 1992 (1) Ð that is to say the              represented by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, and Fergus
day before the entry into force of the rules that are ruining       Randolph, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
their businesses Ð which envisages measures that are                address for service in Luxembourg at Carlo De Nicola's
totally inappropriate to their legitimate expectations and          own address, 16 Rue du Kiem.
to those of the profession as a whole.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of their claims, they allege breach of the
principle of the observance of acquired rights, the                 Ð annul the promotions communicated on 23 July 1997
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and               in so far as they do not contain the applicant's name
the principle of non-discrimination.                                     at point 1.1, annul the decision contained in letter
                                                                         RH/DIR/97-101 of 3 October 1997 and, finally, annul
They state in that connection that, in Regulation (EEC)                  all subsequent related acts, including the assessment
No 3632/85 (2), the Council recognised the existence and                 made of the applicant in respect of 1996 inasmuch as
legitimacy of the profession of customs agent, and no                    it does not propose his promotion to work in D,
indication, either implicit or explicit, has been given that
the position has changed. In their view, they were thereby          Ð order the defendant EIB to pay compensation for
recognised as enjoying a genuine right acquired before the               physical, non-material and material damage.
adoption of the Single European Act, that is to say at a
time when the envisaged extent of European construction
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
did not call for the abolition of intra-Community
frontiers.
                                                                    The applicant, an official of the European Investment
                                                                    Bank, contests the appointing authority's refusal to
As regards the protection of legitimate expectations, the           promote him from E to D in the context of the
applicants consider that when the economic impossibility            promotions decided upon on 23 July 1997.
of exercising a given profession is the result of measures of
secondary law, the legitimate expectations entertained by
economic operators regarding the conduct of the                     The applicant sets out a number of specific situations
Community institutions are frustrated. In their opinion,            within his department and goes on to put forward in
the infringement of their expectations is particularly              support of his claim the following pleas in law:
serious where, as in this case, the supervening
impossibility was severe and total. Moreover, the                   Ð abuse of powers, inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
infringement had particularly serious consequences in this               were infringed, and unequal treatment, inasmuch as
case since, under Regulation (EEC) No 3623/85, the                       the Director-General for Finance had implemented a