title: Order of the President of the Court of 25 July 2000 in Case C-377/98 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions)

text:
C 335/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 25 July 2000                                 1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/362/EC (1) of 25 May
                                                                                2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
in Case C-377/98 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v                                 eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in
European Parliament and Council of the European                                  1997, in so far as the Community financial contribution
                               Union (1)                                         fixed for the eradication of classical swine fever in the
                                                                                Netherlands in 1997 represents a reduction of 25 % in
                                                                                the compensation paid to livestock farmers.
(Application for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
ation of a measure — Urgency — Directive 98/44/EC —
        Legal protection of biotechnological inventions)                   2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 335/44)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          —     Incorrect factual basis:
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published           The absence of an approved contingency plan for classical
                   in the European Court Reports)                                swine fever is primarily a formal omission. There are no
                                                                                relevant differences between the ‘Swine Fever Scenario’
                                                                                applicable at the time of the swine fever crisis and the
In Case C-377/98 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
                                                                                contingency plan subsequently approved by Commission
M.A. Fierstra), supported by Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
                                                                                Decision 1999/246/EC of 30 March 1999.
assisted by D. Del Gaizo) v European Parliament (Agents:
J. Schoo and E. Vandenbosch) and Council of the European
Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono, G. Houttuin and A. Lo Mona-                      The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that
co), supported by Commission of the European Communities                         the Commission’s view that classical swine fever was
(Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Banks) — application for suspen-                     discovered too late in the Netherlands is factually incor-
sion of operation of Directive 98/44/EC of the European                          rect.
Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213,                        The Commission fails to make clear what it understands
p. 13) — the President of the Court has made an order on                         by ‘too many’ animal movements with insufficient
25 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                         guarantee of hygiene in context of the buying-up of pigs
                                                                                and how it comes to that conclusion. The application of
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                         the buying-up rules in Article 1 of Regulation
                                                                                No 413/97/EC inevitably resulted in transport move-
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                    ments within the isolated zone. Yet those movements
                                                                                arose directly from compliance with Regulation 413/97.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                Even the transport movements resulting from the buying-
                                                                                up arrangement which, apart from Regulation
                                                                                No 413/97/EC, was also provided for by the Netherlands
                                                                                authorities, were necessary and not ‘too many’ in number.
                                                                                The Commission is right when it claims that the areas
                                                                                delimited and preventively evacuated around each source
                                                                                of infection were not uniform in size. The conclusion
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by the Kingdom of the                             which it draws from that fact, namely, that it was the
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                               result of inconsistent management, is not correct. The
                            Communities                                          radius of the sanitary slaughter zone was determined on
                                                                                the basis of the specific circumstances of each case. It is
                          (Case C-293/00)                                        not laid down in any Community directive that a radius
                                                                                of 1 000 metres should be applied in the event of
                                                                                preventive sanitary slaughter, and at the time of the
                          (2000/C 335/45)                                        sanitary slaughter operations there was no reason to
                                                                                regard a radius of 500 metres as insufficient. Likewise,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the Commission’s claim that the authorities waited too
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     long before carrying out preventive sanitary slaughter is
Communities on 31 July 2000 by the Kingdom of the                                incorrect. In so far as they may have waited longer than
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-                     was desirable, that was directly connected with the
pean Law Department, and Jantine van Bakel, of the European                      destruction capacity. In any event, from June 1997
Law Department, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague,                   onwards, sanitary slaughter always took place in or
acting as Agents.                                                                within seven days.


title: Case T-121/99: Action brought on 19 May 1999 by Sean Irving against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
Action brought on 19 May 1999 by Sean Irving against                    Action brought on 20 May 1999 by The Procter & Gamble
       the Commission of the European Communities                       Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                        (Case T-121/99)
                                                                                (Case T-122/99)
                        (1999/C 226/67)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/68)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                  (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 May 1999 by Sean Irving
represented by Nuala Butler and James MacGuill, with an                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stephen            Market (the Office) was brought before the Court of First
Le Goueff, 9 ave Guillaume.                                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 May 1999 by
                                                                        The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnatti. Ohio, USA,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             represented by Thierry van Innis of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
— annul Decision No 517 of 26 February 1999 of the                      Manhaeve, 56-58, Rue Charles Martel.
    appointing authority of the Commission rejecting the
    applicant’s complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90(2)
    of the Staff Regulations and lodged on 9 October 1998;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 16 July 1998                  — annul Decision R 74/1998-3 of 15 March 1999 of the
    removing the applicant from his post pursuant to Article                Third Board of Appeal;
    86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations;
— in the event of such annulment, to reinstate the applicant            — order the Office to publish Application No 230680 for a
    in his post as a B2 Official in DGX;                                    Community trace mark following expiry of the period laid
                                                                            down in Article 39(6) of the Regulation on the Community
— order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in                       trace mark;
    respect of the losses sustained by him as a result of the
    defendant’s decisions and actions;                                  — order the Office to pay the whole of the costs.
— order that the applicant’s costs be borne by the defendant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Trade mark:                       Three dimensional mark —
The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that the failure of                                             Application No. 230680
the Commission to comply with the time-limits prescribed in
the Staff Regulations constitutes an infringement of an essential
procedural requirement and thus renders the decision of                 Goods or services:                Soaps
16 July 1998 void. He contends that the decision to dismiss
him was tainted by delay on the part of the Commission at               Decision contested before         Examiner’s refusal to register
virtually every stage of the procedure. No explanation was              the Board of Appeal:
offered by the Commission for such delay and as no justifi-
cation for the delay exists, the decision is accordingly void for       Pleas in law:                     Infringement by the board of
breach of the procedural requirements laid down in Article 88                                             Appeal of Regulation (EC) No
(3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 (1) and Article 7 (3)                                          40/94 and the rights of the
of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.                                                                     defence by basting its decision
                                                                                on absolute grounds of refusal
The applicant submits, on the other hand, that the decision of                                            other than that found by the
the appointing authority was taken in breach of the rule of law                                           examiner;
in that he was not accorded a fair, or indeed any, hearing by
the Appointing Authority before the decision of 16 July 1998                                              Infringement      of      Article
was taken. The applicant’s contention rests on two principal                                              7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No
grounds. Firstly, he was given inadequate notice of the intended                                          40/94
hearing in Brussels having regard to the fact that he was living
in Dublin and wished to be represented by a lawyer practising           Alternative pleas:                Infringement     of      Articles
in Dublin. Secondly, no financial assistance was made available                                           7(1)(b) and 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regu-
to the applicant for the purposes of meeting the legal expenses                                           lation No 40/94
of a hearing in Brussels.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94 (references for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof): Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG and Others (Repackaging of trade-marked products - Article 36 of the EC Treaty)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/9
before that court between Syndicat fran^ais de l'Express                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
International ( SFEI ) and Others and La Poste and Others on                                of 11 July 1996
the interpretation of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty, the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,            in Joined Cases C-71/94 , C-72/94 and C-73/94 ( references
C. N. Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet, and G. Hirsch ( Presidents       for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof):
                                                                    Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG and
of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ),
J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G.                                           Others ( 1 )
Jacobs, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                    (Repackaging oftrade-markedproducts — Article 36 ofthe
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                        EC Treaty)
judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it ruled :                                                 ( 96/C 336/ 17 )
1 . A national court, seised of a request that it should draw                       (Language of the case: German)
     the appropriate conclusions from an infringement of the
     last sentence of Article 93 (3) of the Treaty, where the
     matter has also been referred to the Commission, which         (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be
     has not yet given a final decision on the question                      published in the European Court Reports)
     whether the State measures constitute State aid, is not
     required to declare that it lacks jurisdiction or to stay
     proceedings until such time as the Commission has              In Joined Cases C-71 /94 , C-72/94 and C-73/94 , references
     adopted a position on how the measures in question are         to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the
     to be categorized. With a view to determining whether          Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) for a
     those measures should have been notified to the                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     Commission, a national court may have cause to                 court between Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH and
     interpret and apply the concept of aid. In case of doubt,      Beiersdorf AG ( C-71 /94 ), Boehringer Ingelheim KG
     it may ask the Commission for clarification.                   ( C-72/94 ), Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH ( C-73/94 ) on the
     Furthermore, it may or must, in accordance with the            interpretation of Article 36 of the EC Treaty in relation to
     second and third paragraphs of Article 177 of the EC           trade marks, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
     Treaty, refer a question to the Court of Justice for a         Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
     preliminary ruling. Where it consults the Commission or        Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
     refers a question to the Court, it must decide whether it      Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann
     is necessary to order interim measures in order to             and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G.
     safeguard the interests of the parties pending final           Jacobs, for the Registrar : H. von Holstein, Deputy
     judgment.                                                      Registrar, L. Hewlett, Administrator has given a judgment
                                                                    on 11 July 1996 in which it rules :
2 . The provision of logistical and commercial assistance by
     a public undertaking to its subsidiaries, which are            Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning
     governed by private law and carry on an activity open to       that a trade-mark owner may rely on his rights as owner to
     free competition, is capable of constituting State aid         prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical
     within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty if the       product which was put on the market in another Member
     remuneration received in return is less than that which        State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer
     would have been demanded under normal market                   has repackaged the product in new external packaging
     conditions.                                                    through which the trade mark affixed to the original
                                                                    packaging has been made visible, or where he has modified
                                                                    the contents and the appearance of original external
3 . A national court requested to order the repayment of            packaging while preserving the trade mark affixed thereto
     aid must grant that application if it finds that the aid       by the manufacturer, unless:
     was not notified to the Commission, unless by
     reason of exceptional circumstances repayment is               — it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the
     inappropriate.                                                     owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged
                                                                        products under that trade mark would contribute to the
                                                                        artificial partitioning of the markets between Member
4 . A recipient of aid who does not verify that the aid has             States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner
     been notified to the Commission in accordance with                 has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the
     Article 93 (3) of the Treaty cannot incur liability solely         market in several Member States in various forms of
     on the basis of Community law.                                     packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the
                                                                        importer is necessary in order to market the product in
                                                                        the Member State of importation, and also carried out in
(M OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .                                         such conditions that the original condition of the
                                                                        product cannot be affected by it; that requirement does
                                                                        not, however, imply that it must be established that the
                                                                        trade mark owner deliberately sought to partition the
                                                                        markets between Member States ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/ 10        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
— it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  original condition of the product inside the packaging;                                   of 11 July 1996
  such is the case, in particular, where the importer has
  merely carried out operations involving no risk of the           in Case C-228/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
  product being affected, such as, for example, the                the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
  removal of blister packs from their original external            Bench Division ): Stanley Charles Atkins v. Wrekin District
  packaging and their insertion with one or more original                        Council, Department of Transport ( l )
  packages into new external packaging, or their insertion         (Equal treatment for men and women — Concessionary
  in another original package, the fixing ofself-stick labels      fares on public passenger transport services — Scope of
   on original external packaging or blister packs, or the               Directive 79/7/EEC — Link with retirement age)
  addition to the packaging of new user instructions or                                        96/C 336/ 18 )
  information; it is for the national court to ascertain
  whether the cutting of blister packs or the reprinting of
   batch numbers on them are carried out in such a manner
  as to exclude any real risk of affecting the original
  condition of the tablets inside; that must be regarded as
  being the case where, for example, those operations are                           (Language of the case: English)
  authorized and supervised by a public authority with a
  view to ensuring that the product remains intact; it is
  also for the national court to verify that the original
  condition of the product inside the packaging is not
  indirectly affected, for example, by the fact that the           In Case C-228/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
  external or inner packaging of the repackaged product            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice
  or new user instructions of information omits certain            of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
  important information or gives inaccurate information,           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  or by the fact that the packaging of the repackaged              court between Stanley Charles Atkins and Wrekin District
  product is not such as to give the product adequate              Council, Department of Transport — on the interpretation
  protection,                                                      of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                   progressive implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                   treatment for men and women in matters of social
— the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the              security ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
  product and the name of the manufacturer in print such           Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward,
  that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal          Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de
  degree of attentiveness, would be in a position to               Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H.
  understand; however, it is not necessary to indicate that        Ragnemalm and L. Sevon, Judges ; M. B. Elmer,
  the repackaging was carried out without the                      Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave
  authorization of the trade-mark owner,                           judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it ruled :
— the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as
  to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark
  and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be
  defective, ofpoor quality, or untidy; it is for the national     On a proper interpretation of Article 3 (1 ) of Council
                                                                   Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
  court to ascertain whether the insertion into single
  external packaging of both original external packaging           progressive implementation of the principle of equal
  and loose blister packs constitutes an untidy form of            treatment for men and women in matters ofsocial security, a
                                                                   scheme such as that provided for in Section 93 (7) of the
  packaging liable to damage the reputation of the trade
  mark; as for the cutting of blister packs; it is for that        Transport Act 1985 and implemented and operated by
  court to assess in each particular case whether it has been      Wrekin District Council, under which concessionary fares
  carried out in such a manner that the reputation of the          on public passenger transport services are granted to certain
  trade mark might suffer; and                                     classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does
                                                                   not fall within the scope of the Directive.
— the importer gives notice to the trade mark owner before
  the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand,
  supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged                   (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
  product.                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 6 , 19 79, p . 24 .
H OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 June 2011 in Case E-12/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Leave with pay in the event of illness or accident — Insurance against accidents)

text:
               17.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/20

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 June 2011
   in Case E-12/10
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Leave with pay in the event of illness or accident — Insurance against accidents)
   2011/C 336/14
   In Case E-12/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 June 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


8.4.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/31
— Nullity of the decision setting up the OLAF and of                           Removal from the register of Case T-219/94 (1)
     Regulation No 1073/1999:
     The applicants raise the objection, pursuant to Article 241                                (2000/C 102/62)
     EC, that the legal acts on which the contested decision is
     based are null and void. Both the Commission Decision of
     28 April 1999 establishing the OLAF (1) and Regulation                               (Language of the case: German)
     (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
     the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations               By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
     conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2)             Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
     are invalid.                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case T-219/94, Hans-Henrich Fürstenwerth v
The Commission based the decision establishing the OLAF on              Commission of the European Communities.
Article 162 of the EC Treaty (now Article 218 EC), hence on a
provision designed to regulate the internal organisational
power, namely the Rules of Procedure. However, it is not                (1) OJ C 218 of 6.8.1994.
possible on that basis to set up a body which is in reality legally
separate from the organisational power of the Commission.
Moreover, in adopting its decision establishing the OLAF, the
Commission unlawfully relinquished part of the supervisory
powers conferred on it by Article 211 EC. In addition, it
delegated to the OLAF powers which it does not possess.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-206/95 (1)
Finally, the regulation based on the decision is likewise founded
on an insufficient legal basis, since Article 280 EC merely                                     (2000/C 102/63)
concerns the combatting of fraud within the Member States. It
does not therefore cover the Community institutions. In
addition, the OLAF’s investigatory powers go beyond any                                   (Language of the case: German)
powers that could conceivably be needed in order to investigate
criminal offences committed within the Parliament.
                                                                        By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 20.                                               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(2) OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1.                                                Case T-206/95: Josef Gierse v Council of the European Union
                                                                        and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
Partial Removal from the register in Joined Cases
                     T-530/93 and Others (1)
                         (2000/C 102/61)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-15/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/64)
By order of 24 January 2000, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of M.A.M. Nijenhuis and J.I.M. and W. Spikker                                 (Language of the case: French)
from the list of applicants in Case T-533/93 — Joined Cases
T-530/93 and Others, R. Bathoorn and Others v Council                   By order of 19 January 2000, the President of the First
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-15/98, Centre d’Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman a.s.b.l.
                                                                        v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.1993, C 27 of 28.1.1994, C 43 of 12.2.1994,
    C 59 of 26.2.1994, C 90 of 26.3.1994, C 103 of 11.4.1994,
    C 120 of 30.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 233 of 20.8.1994          (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
    and C 370 of 24.12.1994.


title: Case T-150/14: Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Pavlides v Commission and ECB

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/31

         Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Pavlides v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-150/14)
   2014/C 159/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Constantinos Pavlides (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/17

         Removal from the register of Case C-340/03 (1)

   (2005/C 19/36)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 25 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-340/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Case C-246/01: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/13

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-246/01)
   2010/C 195/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (1), and in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/42/CE expired on 29 June 2008. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 157, p. 24.


title: Case C-365/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-365/08)
   (2008/C 285/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage (2) provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, must be included in the assessment of the production charge?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination derived from Article 34 EC?

      (1)  OJ L 58, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 78, p. 20.


title: Case C-109/08: Action brought on 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/15

         Action brought on 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-109/08)
   (2008/C 116/27)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Maria Patakia)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC (1);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a proposed penalty payment of EUR 31 798,80 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment which was delivered in Case C-65/05, from the day when judgment is delivered in the present case until the day when the judgment delivered in Case C-65/05 has been complied with;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 9 636, from the day when judgment was delivered in Case C-65/05 until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case or, if earlier, the date on which the judgment in Case C-65/05 is complied with;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               On 26 October 2006 the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered a judgment in which it declared as follows:

                           by inserting into Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002 the prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the same law, on the installation and operation of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998.

               2.

               After calling upon the Hellenic Republic to inform it of any regulatory measures to comply with the Court's judgment, the Commission sent it a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion, in accordance with Article 228 EC. The Hellenic Republic replied to neither.

               3.

               Consequently, the Commission recorded that the Hellenic Republic had failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment and decided to bring proceedings against it before the Court in accordance with Article 228 EC.

               4.

               By its action the Commission, first, asks the Court to declare that the Hellenic Republic has not complied with the judgment delivered by the Court on 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05 and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC and, second, proposes that the Court order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission:

                           —

                           a penalty payment of EUR 31 798,80 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment which was delivered in Case C-65/05, from the day when judgment is delivered in the present case until the day when the judgment delivered in Case C-65/05 has been complied with;

                           —

                           a daily lump sum of EUR 9 636, from the day when judgment was delivered in Case C-65/05 until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case or, if earlier, the date on which the judgment in Case C-65/05 is complied with.

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37).


title: Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Adaptation of the claim — Time-limit — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Rights of defence)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council
   (Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Adaptation of the claim - Time-limit - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Rights of defence)
   2014/C 78/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Cook, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulation in part, firstly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article [32](1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 6); secondly, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 33); thirdly, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); fourthly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9); fifthly, the ‘decision letters’ of the Council of 24 January 2012 and 30 November 2012 notifying the applicant of the restrictive measures affecting it; sixthly, Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP of 28 February 2013 amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 58, p. 8); seventhly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1); eighthly, Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts affect the applicant’s situation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Action brought on 17 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-344/96)

text:
No C 388/4         \_ EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21 . 12 . 96
Action brought on 16 October 1996 by the Kingdom of                        undertakings, and the competent bodies — Fogasa
Spain against the Commission of the European                               and the General Social Security Fund — have no
                         Communities                                       discretion whatsoever to apply, in such a way as to
                       Case C-342/96 )                                     favour specific undertakings, any other higher or
                                                                           lower rate of interest than that laid down by law
                        ( 96/C 388/07 )                                    for all statutory obligations .
An action against the Commission of the European                       — Since it is nowhere provided in the legislation that
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     amounts over and above the statutory rate must be
the European Communities on 16 October 1996 by the                         paid into public funds in respect of deferred
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Paloma Plaza Garcia,                      payment of social security debts or repayment of
Abogado del Estado, of the Legal Service for Community                     wages paid out by Fogasa, Tubacex and Acerias de
Affairs, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   Alava have not received any aid from any funds,
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                           whether of State or any other origin ( not even
Emmanuel Servais .                                                         employers' contributions which Fogasa receives
                                                                           under Article 3 of Royal Decree 505/85 and
                                                                           Article 33 of the Employees' Statute ), nor have any
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sums which might lawfully belong to those public
                                                                           funds been prevented from being paid in, since the
—- annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 2384 final of                          statutory rules have been applied quite simply
    30 July 1996 concerning State aid granted to                           without any interference or exception, and no
    Compañía Española de Tubos por Extrusión SA at                         sums which by law should have been paid into
    Llodio (Álava ), and                                                   those funds have been taken away from them or
                                                                           prevented from being paid in.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       — There has been no distortion of competition .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Both the social security authorities and Fogasa
The contested decision finds that State aid has been
                                                                           have acted in the same way as a private creditor
                                                                           would have done in order to recover the debts
granted as a result of interest being applied at the                        owed to them .
statutory rate on the repayment agreements for sums paid
out by the Fondo de Garantfa Salarial (Wages Guarantee
Fund — Fogasa ) to the employees of Tubacex and its
subsidiary Acerias de Alava, and of those undertakings
being allowed to pay their social security debts by
deferred instalments, on the ground that the rate applied is
lower than the average rate on the private banking                 Action brought on 17 October 1996 by the Commission
market.                                                            of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
— Infringement of Article 118 of the EC Treaty: in                                         ( Case C-344/96 )
    accordance with Article 118 of the EC Treaty, only the                                   ( 96/C 388/08 )
    Spanish legislature has the power to lay down Spanish
    social security legislation; Article 20 of Royal
    Legislative Decree 1/1994 of 20 June 1994, which
    forms part of that legislation, regulates deferment of         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    payment and payment by instalments of debts in                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    respect of social security contributions and surcharges        Communities on 17 October 1996 by the Commission of
    thereon, providing that they are to bear interest at a         the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
    certain rate .                                                 Borchardt, a member of its Legal Service, with an address
                                                                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                   de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
    Also in accordance with Article 118 of the EC Treaty,          Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    only the Spanish legislature has the power to lay down
    Spanish employment law. The payment of employees'
    salaries by the Fogasa, the very existence of that body        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    and the manner in which it operates serve to provide
    wage guarantees and are statutory and mandatory
    conditions in employment contracts, and the governing          1 . declare that, by failing to take within the prescribed
    legislation forms an integral part of employment law.              period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                       Directives 93/62/EEC f 1 ), 93/63/EEC ( 2), 93/64/
— Incorrect application of Article 92 of the EC Treaty:                EEC ( 3 ), 93/78/EEC (4 ), 93/79/EEC (5 ) and 94/3/
                                                                       EC ( 6 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
    — The application of the statutory interest rate                   fulfil its obligations under those Directives and under
        is a general measure which applies for all                     the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- 21 . 12 . 96                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 388/5
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                         Action brought on 25 October 1996 by the Italian
      costs .                                                                      Republic against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case C-352/96 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                       ( 96/C 388/ 10 )
The mandatory character of the first paragraph of Article 5                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
requires Member States to implement directives addressed                     Communities on 25 October 1996 by the Italian Republic,
to them in such a way that they take full effect by the                      represented by its Agent, Professor Umberto Leanza,
expiry of the prescribed period. That period expired on                      assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with
5 May 1994 in relation to Directive 94/3/EC, and on                          an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
30 June 1994 in relation to the other Directives referred to                 Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
above, without the Federal Republic of Germany having
taken the necessary measures.
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should declare null
                                                                             and void Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/96 of 24 July
f1)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10. 1993 , p . 29 .                                  1996 (*) and, in particular, Articles 3 , 4 and 9 thereof.
(2)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 31 .
(3)   OJ No   L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
(4 )  OJ No   L 256, 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(5)   OJ No   L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25 .
(6)   OJ No   L 32, 5 . 2 . 1994, p. 37.
                                                                             The Italian Republic maintains that, by adopting
                                                                             Regulation ( EC ) No 1522/96 and, in particular, Articles 3 ,
                                                                             4 and 9 thereof, the Council of the European Union has
                                                                             infringed GATT Article XXIV ( 6 ), Article 43 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty and the fundamental principle of proportionality. It
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  also argues that the Commission infringed essential
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of                             procedural requirements: specifically, it failed to provide a
8 October 1996 in the case of Clean Car Autoservice                          proper statement of reasons and misused its powers.
           Ges.m.b.H. v. Landeshauptmann von Wien
                             ( Case C-3 50/96 )                              f 1 ) OJ No L 190, 31 . 7. 1996. p . 1 .
                               ( 96/C 388/09
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by - an order of                                 Action brought on 29 October 1996 by the Commission
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) of                                   of the European Communities against Ireland
8 October 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry                                               ( Case C-353/96 )
on 24 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Clean Car Autoservice Ges.m.b.H. v. Landeshauptmann                                                      96/C 388/ 11 )
von Wien on the following questions:
                                                                             An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
1 . Are Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of                   Justice of the European Communities on 29 October 1996
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 (*) to be interpreted as                 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      meaning that employers in the host State also derive                   represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
      therefrom the right to employ workers who are                          Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
      nationals of another Member State without being                        Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
       bound by conditions which — even if they do not                       member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
      depend on nationality — are typically linked with                      Luxembourg.
      nationality ?
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . If employers of the host State have the right stated in
       Question 1 : Are Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                      — declare that, in failing to comply with the provisions
      Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 to be                       of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
      interpreted as meaning that a provision such as                              coordinating procedures for the award of public
      paragraph 39 ( 2 ) of the Gewerbeordnung 1994, under                         supply contracts ( J ), as amended by Directive 88/295/
      which the owner of a trade may appoint as manager                            EEC (2 ), and, in particular, in failing to publish its call
      for trade law purposes only a person whose residence                         for tender for the supply of fertilizers on behalf of the
      is in the host State (Austria ), is consistent therewith ?                   Irish Forestry Board ( Coillte Teoranta ) in the Official
                                                                                Journal of the European Communities, Ireland has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
f 1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                             — order Ireland to pay the costs .


title: Case C-205/04: Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/4

         Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-205/04)
   (2004/C 168/08)
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt a law which expressly provides, in respect of the Spanish civil service, for account to be taken, for financial purposes, of previous periods of employment in the public service of another Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/681 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice, Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) require Member States to take account of the seniority and experience acquired in the public service of another Member State by Community citizens for the purpose of their access, grading and determination of seniority in its civil service. Currently, in the Spanish legal system, there is no measure which ensures with the necessary legal certainty that account is taken for financial purposes of periods of employment in the public service of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475.


title: Judgment of the Court 19 February 2002 in Case C-256/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WABAG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog) (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Place of performance of the obligation in question — Obligation not to do something, applicable without geographical limit — Undertakings given by two companies not to bind themselves to other partners when tendering for a public contract — Application of Article 2)

text:
18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 118/13
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force, in Article 207 of the         F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), A. La
      Italian highway code, a disproportionate difference in treatment      Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
      between offenders based on the place of registration of their         and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      vehicles, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations   Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in
      under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,               which it has ruled:
      Article 12 EC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         The special jurisdictional rule in matters relating to a contract, laid
                                                                            down in Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                            Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                  cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                            the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                            Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is not applicable
                                                                            where, as in the present case, the place of performance of the
                                                                            obligation in question cannot be determined because it consists in an
                                                                            undertaking not to do something which is not subject to any
                                                                            geographical limit and is therefore characterised by a multiplicity of
                                                                            places for its performance. In such a case, jurisdiction can be
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     determined only by application of the general criterion laid down in
                                                                            the first paragraph of Article 2 of that Convention.
                          19 February 2002
                                                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
in Case C-256/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Besix SA v Wasserreini-
gungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (WAB-
AG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing.
        W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog) (1)
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to a contract — Place of performance of the
obligation in question — Obligation not to do something,
applicable without geographical limit — Undertakings given
by two companies not to bind themselves to other partners                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
when tendering for a public contract — Application of
                              Article 2)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 118/19)
                                                                                21 March 2002
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            in Case C-267/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Bench Division (Crown Office)): Commissioners of Cus-
                                                                                toms and Excise v Zoological Society of London (1)
In Case C-256/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(2)(a), second indent —
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             Exempt transactions — Bodies managed and administered
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                        on a voluntary basis)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                (2002/C 118/20)
Besix SA and Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH
& Co. KG (WABAG), Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft
Dipl. Ing. W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co. KG (Plafog), on
the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the aforementioned                                       (Language of the case: English)
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version - p. 77), the Court,                      In Case C-267/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                  EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s


title: Case T-24/00: Action brought on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider Corporation, a company registered in the USA, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law relied on:        — Infringement of Article 7(1)
                                                                                (b) and (c) of Regulation
The applicants state that, in its judgment of 30 September                                                 No 40/94;
1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice,                                            — VITALITE has already been
the Court of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Court                                            accepted in 15 European
of Justice rejecting the applicants’ requests for the entry of                                             countries;
their names on the list of persons having manifested their                                              — the contested decision also
interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their                                              infringes first Council Direc-
service, as provided for by Council Regulation No 2688/95 of                                               tive     No. 89/104/EEC     of
17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate                                                 21 December       1988      to
the service of officials of the European Communities as a result                                           approximate the laws of the
of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.                                                           Member States relating to tra-
                                                                                de marks.
However, in the decision contested in the present case, the
administrative authority of the Court of Justice refused to take
any steps to comply with the said judgement, contrary to
Article 233 EC.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Com-
                                                                         mittee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priese-
                                                                         mann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Action brought on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                                     against the European Central Bank
Corporation, a company registered in the USA, against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-27/00)
                              (OHIM)
                          (Case T-24/00)                                                         (2000/C 135/26)
                         (2000/C 135/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)                       An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           on 15 February 2000 by the Staff Committee of the European
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and
European Communities on 9 February 2000 by The Sunrider                  Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Corporation, represented by Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,                 Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, with an address for
Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstrasse 48, Munich, Germany.                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloys Schiltz, c/o
                                                                         Association Luxembourgeoise des Employées des Banque et
                                                                         d’Assurance a.s.b.l, 29, avenue Monterey.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Decision R 137/1999-2 of 6 December 1999 in so                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    far as the said decision dismissed the applicant’s appeal;
                                                                         — order the defendant to cease and desist from deriving the
— order the defendant to bear the costs.                                     rights or obligations of its staff from Administrative
                                                                             Circular 11/98 concerning ECB Internet usage policy,
                                                                             dated 12 November 1998 (the ‘Administrative Circular’);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                         — order the defendant to withdraw the Administrative Circu-
Trade mark concerned:           VITALITE                                     lar and inform in writing the staff of the ECB about this
                                                                             withdrawal;
Product of service:             Goods in international classes 5,
                                29 and 32 of the Nice Classifi-          — order the defendant to cease and desist from adopting
                                cation                                       rules addressed to its staff as a collective and intended to
                                                                             govern the behaviour thereof without these rules being
Decision contested be-          Rejection of registration by the             consulted with the Staff Committee, as demanded by
fore the Board of Ap-           Examination Division                         Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of
peal:                                                                        the European Central Bank (‘CoE’);


title: Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-290/97)

text:
10. 1. 98            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/27
Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Mehibas                      Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf                  reasons and the principle of proportionality.
Codirex BV) against the Commission of the European
                        Communities                                (1) The Decision concerns the application of Article 13 of Council
                       (Case T-290/97)                                 Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
                                                                       repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ L 175,
                         (98/C 7/70)                                   12. 7. 1979, p. 1).
                                                                   (2) OJ C 137, 3. 6. 1995, p. 34.
                                                                   (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community
                                                                       Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11. 10. 1993, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
1997 by Mehibas Dordtselaan BV (formerly Expeditie- en
Controlebedrijf Codirex BV), Rotterdam, represented by
P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the Rotterdam Bar, with          Action brought on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            and Others against the Council of the European Union
M. Loesch, 11, rue Goethe.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-291/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 7/71)
Ð annul the Commission's Decision (C(97)2331 final) of                             (Language of the case: French)
    22 July 1997 (1), addressed to the Netherlands,
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 12 November 1997 by Robert Mehlen
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                and the other applicants whose names are listed in the
                                                                   annex, represented by Fernand Entringer, of the
                                                                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
The present case is a continuation of Case T-89/95 (2), in         Luxembourg at his Chambers, 34A, rue Philippe II.
which the applicant contested the earlier refusal by the
Commission to decide that the same agricultural levies as
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
those in issue in the present case should be repaid.
                                                                   Ð declare that there has been wrongful conduct on the
After the Commission had withdrawn the decision at                      part of the Commission and the Council; that their
issue, the case was removed from the register of the Court              wrongful conduct gives rise to the Union's non-
of First Instance.                                                      contractual liability; that damage has been suffered by
                                                                        the applicants as a result of the wrongful conduct; that
                                                                        the Union is required to compensate them for that
The applicant advances the following pleas against the                  damage,
decision contested in the present case:
                                                                   Ð take formal note of the fact that the applicants
Ð lack of competence on the part of the Commission, in                  estimate the damage at Lfrs 3 000 000, without
    that it allowed the mandatory time limit prescribed by              prejudice to any calculation made specifically in
    the second sentence of Article 907 of Regulation                    regard to each undertaking,
    (EEC) No 2454/93 (3) to elapse by failing in good time
    to adopt a decision on the first application for               Ð order the Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.
    remission,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the
    protection of legitimate expectations, in that the             The applicants are seeking compensation for the damage
    applicant could not have known that its application            which they allege to have suffered as a result of acts and
    for remission had not caused time to start running,            omissions by the Council and the Commission when
                                                                   Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Mad Cow
Ð infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)                   Disease', appeared.
    No 1430/79, in that the Commission failed to take
    into account the different time limits applying under          On the basis of a report published on 7 February 1997 by
    Netherlands law to supplementary applications for              the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE, constituted
    reimbursement of import duties and agricultural levies,        by the European Parliament, the applicants consider that


title: Case F-42/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-42/12)
   2012/C 184/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposal to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the calculation taking into account the new GIP entering into force after the application for transfer by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 December 2011 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and requiring the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force when she applied to transfer her pension rights;

               —

               If necessary, annul the PMO proposal of 1 August 2011 applying the actuarial values resulting from the new GIP;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-258/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 18 June 2008 — Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd v Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 18 June 2008 — Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd v Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator
   (Case C-258/08)
   (2008/C 223/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd

      Respondent: Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a restrictive national gaming policy which is aimed at channelling the propensity to gamble and which in fact contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by the national legislation in question, namely, the curbing of gambling addiction and the prevention of fraud, inasmuch as, by reason of the regulated offer of games of chance, participation in gambling activities occurs on a (much) more limited scale than would be the case if there were no national regulatory system, satisfy the condition set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, particularly in the judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031, that such restrictions must limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner, even where the licence holder/s is/are permitted to make the games of chance which it/they offer/s attractive by introducing new games, to bring the games which it/they offer/s to the notice of a wide public by means of advertising and thereby to keep (potential) gamblers away from the unlawful offer of games of chance (see Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 55, in fine)?

               2a.

               Assuming that national legislation governing gaming policy is compatible with Article 49 EC, is it for the national courts to determine, on every occasion on which they apply that legislation in practice in an actual case, whether the measure to be imposed, such as an order that a particular website be made inaccessible to residents of the Member State concerned by means of software designed for that purpose, in order to prevent them from participating in the games of chance offered thereon, in itself and as such satisfies the condition, in the specific circumstances of the case, that it should actually serve the objectives which might justify the national legislation in question, and whether the restriction resulting from that legislation and its application on the freedom to provide services is not disproportionate in the light of those objectives?

               2b.

               In answering Question 2a, does it make any difference if the measure to be implemented is not ordered and imposed in the context of the application of the national legislation by the authorities, but in the context of a civil action in which an organiser of games of chance operating with the required licence requests imposition of the measure on the ground that an unlawful act has been committed in its regard under civil law, inasmuch as the opposing party contravened the national legislation in question, thereby gaining an unfair advantage over the party operating with the required licence?

               3.

               Should Article 49 EC be interpreted in such a way that the application of that article results in the competent authority of a Member State being unable, on the basis of the closed licensing system that exists in that State for the provision of gaming services, to prohibit a service provider which has already been granted a licence in another Member State for the online provision of such services from also offering those services online in the first Member State?


title: Case C-243/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno, Italy, by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others

text:
C 245/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.9.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                        failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council
Ascoli Piceno, Italy, by order of that court of 30 March                      Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
2001 in criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli                     for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
                            and Others                                        routes;
                                                                        2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs
                         (Case C-243/01)
                                                                              of the proceedings.
                         (2001/C 245/14)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Ascoli             In adopting Regulation No 2408/92 the Council, pursuant to
Piceno of 30 March 2001, which was received at the Court                Article 80(2) EC, defined the detailed rules for application of
Registry on 22 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                   the principle of freedom to supply services within the area of
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against              air transport, as set out in Article 49 EC. When the provisions
Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others, on the following question:             of Regulation No 2408/92 fall to be interpreted, therefore,
                                                                        recourse must be had to that principle, which goes further
                                                                        than simply prohibiting discrimination of a service provider
A decision is sought as to the compatibility with Article 43 et
                                                                        established in another Member State on the ground of that
seq. and Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty regarding freedom
                                                                        person’s nationality, providing as it does also for the removal
of establishment and freedom to provide cross-frontier ser-
                                                                        of any restriction whatsoever — even if applicable without
vices, and the repercussions thereof within the national legal
                                                                        distinction to domestic service providers and to service providers
order, of domestic legislation like the Italian provisions
                                                                        from other Member States — which prohibits, obstructs or
contained in Article 4(1) et seq., Article 4 bis and Article 4 ter
                                                                        renders less attractive the activities ’of a service provider who
of Law No 401 of 13 December 1989 (as most recently
                                                                        is established in another Member State and lawfully provides
amended by Article 37(5) of Law No 388 of 23 December
                                                                        similar services there. Under Article 1 of the Netherlands
2000) which impose prohibitions — enforced by criminal
                                                                        Regulation of 9 May 1995, there is an exemption from
penalties — on the pursuit, by any person and at any place, of
                                                                        mandatory checks for ’flights with a domestic destination. This
the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding
                                                                        does not apply in the case of flights on which passengers can
offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, unless
                                                                        mingle with passengers for flights having an international
the requirements concerning concessions and authorisations
                                                                        destination’. As a result of this, a cross-border flight within the
prescribed by domestic law have been complied with.
                                                                        Community involves the carrier in higher costs than in
                                                                        the case of a comparable domestic flight. The Netherlands
                                                                        Regulation also makes it possible for security checks to be
                                                                        carried out for domestic flights (on the ground that passengers
                                                                        on such flights may mingle with passengers for international
                                                                        flights), but without any charge being levied in that connection.
Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                           Netherlands.
                          (Case C-246/0l)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                        beamt Wien by order of that court of 25 June 2001 in the
                         (2001/C 245/15)                                review procedure brought by the architect and qualified
                                                                        engineer Werner Hackermüller against 1. BIG Bundesim-
                                                                        mobiliengesellschaft mbH and 2. WED Wiener Entwick-
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                                   lungsgesellschaft mbH
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European                                                   (Case C-249/01)
Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and H.M.H. Spey-
art, acting as Agents.                                                                             (2001/C 245/16)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
1.    Rule that, by adopting and maintaining in force                   Wien (Federal Contracting Authority, Vienna) of 25 June 2001,
      Articles 37g and 37j of the Luchtvaartwet (Law on Air             received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2001, for a
      Traffic) and Article 1 of the Regulation of the Netherlands       preliminary ruling in the review procedure brought by the
      Minister of Justice of 9 May 1995 on the exemption of             architect and qualified engineer Werner Hackermüller against
      flights on which passengers are subject to checks for             1. BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and 2. WED Wien-
      dangerous objects, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has             er Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH on the following questions:


title: Case C-280/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Vodafone D2 GmbH, formerly Vodafone AG & Co. KG, formerly Arcor AG & Co. KG and Others (Appeal — Competition — Article 82 EC — Markets for telecommunications services — Access to the fixed network of the incumbent operator — Wholesale charges for local loop access services to competitors — Retail charges for access services to end-users — Pricing practices of a dominant undertaking — Margin squeeze — Charges approved by the national regulatory authority — Leeway of the dominant undertaking — Attributability of the infringement — Meaning of abuse — As-efficient-competitor test — Calculation of the margin squeeze — Effects of the abuse — Amount of the fine)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 — Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, Vodafone D2 GmbH, formerly Vodafone AG & Co. KG, formerly Arcor AG & Co. KG and Others
   (Case C-280/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - Markets for telecommunications services - Access to the fixed network of the incumbent operator - Wholesale charges for local loop access services to competitors - Retail charges for access services to end-users - Pricing practices of a dominant undertaking - Margin squeeze - Charges approved by the national regulatory authority - Leeway of the dominant undertaking - Attributability of the infringement - Meaning of ‘abuse’ - As-efficient-competitor test - Calculation of the margin squeeze - Effects of the abuse - Amount of the fine)
   2010/C 346/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Deutsche Telekom AG (represented by: U. Quack, S. Ohlhoff and M. Hutschneider, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, W. Mölls and O. Weber, Agents), Vodafone D2 GmbH, formerly Vodafone AG & Co. KG, formerly Arcor AG & Co. KG (represented by: M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwalt), Versatel NRW GmbH, formerly Tropolys NRW GmbH, formerly CityKom Münster GmbH Telekommunikationsservice, EWE TEL GmbH, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel Nord GmbH, formerly Versatel Nord-Deutschland GmbH, formerly KomTel Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Informationsdienste mbH, NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH, Versatel Süd GmbH, formerly Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH, formerly tesion Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel West GmbH, formerly Versatel West-Deutschland GmbH, formerly Versatel Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: N. Nolte, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 April 2008 in Case T-271/03 Deutsche Telekom v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 — Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Abuse of a dominant position — Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany — Abusive nature of pricing practices of a dominant undertaking charging its competitors tariffs for wholesale access to the local loop that are higher than the prices it charges for retail access to the local network

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.