title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-110/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/59/EC)

text:
8.12.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 348/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive
                                                                                77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures
                                                                                with regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions
                         of 25 October 2001                                        and practical arrangements for implementing them;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-78/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Issue of
Government bonds to refund excess VAT — Category of
        taxable persons whose tax position is in credit)
                           (2001/C 348/11)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                of 11 October 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in Case C-110/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 97/59/EC)
In Case C-78/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: E. Traversa) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,                                              (2001/C 348/12)
assisted by G. De Bellis) — application for a declaration that,
by providing that the category of taxable persons whose tax                                      (Language of the case: German)
position for 1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with
government bonds instead of refunds of value added tax, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                      in the European Court Reports)
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplifi-                  In Case C-110/00: Commission of the European Communities
cation measures with regard to value added tax — scope of                    (Agent: N. Yerrell and C. Ladenburger) v Republic of Austria
certain exemptions and practical arrangements for                            (Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that,
implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth                  by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission the laws,
Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), President                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth                      with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                       adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                      on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001,                biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within
in which it:                                                                 the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/301/EEC) (OJ
                                                                             1997 L 282, p. 33), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive — the Court
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of S. von Bahr, President of the
1.    Declares that by providing that the category of taxable persons        Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
      whose tax position for1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with       Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the
      government bonds instead of refunds of the excess value added          Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
      tax the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under    it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/8                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.12.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,          to comply with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 Novem-
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary          ber 1997 adapting, for the third time, to technical progress
      to comply with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October                  Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers
      1997 adapting to technical progress Council Directive                      from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work, the
      90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to              Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual                  Article 2(1) of that Directive;
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its        2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive;
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                     (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
                         of 11 October 2001
                                                                           in Case C-189/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Com-                          the Sozialgericht Trier): Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für
                munities v Republic of Austria (1)                                                        Arbeit (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Nationals of non-member
                         Directive 97/65/EC)                               countries — Members of a worker’s family — Rights
                                                                           acquired directly and rights derived through others —
                                                                                Unemployment benefit)
                            (2001/C 348/13)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/14)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-111/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: N. Yerrell and C. Ladenburger) v Republic of Austria
(Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                           In Case C-189/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission the laws,
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                           (Social Court) Trier (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
with Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 November 1997
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Urszula Ruhr
adapting, for the third time, to technical progress Council
                                                                           v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation of
Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
                                                                           Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
related to exposure to biological agents at work, (OJ 1997
                                                                           14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
L 335, p. 17), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive — the Court
                                                                           of their families moving within the Community, in the version
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
                                                                           amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                           of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by
mans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 (OJ
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
                                                                           1999 L 38, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
it:
                                                                           P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary    it has ruled:


               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/5

      Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
      (2010/C 288/09)
      On 20 September 2010, the General Court decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Prek to replace the President of the General Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, for the period from 20 September 2010 to 31 August 2011.


title: Case F-56/13: Action brought on 6 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/29

         Action brought on 6 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-56/13)
   2013/C 274/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 27 February 2013 rejecting the complaints made by the applicant on 7 January 2013 against the decisions of the PMO.4 of 10 October 2012;

               —

               annul in addition those decisions of 10 October 2012 adopted by the PMO.4 against which the applicant’s complaints were made;

               —

               declare unlawful the general implementing provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as adopted on 3 March 2011, particularly Article 9 thereof, and declare them inapplicable to the present case;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-305/06: Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (FERROMIX)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/61

         Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (FERROMIX)
   (Case T-305/06)
   (2006/C 326/132)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Allentown, USA) (represented by: S. Heurung, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messer Group GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 September 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in joined Cases R 1270/2005-2 and R 1408/2005-2;

               —

               reject the contested application for registration of the trade mark ‘FERROMIX’ CTM 3 190 063 in its entirety;

               —

               send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

               —

               order Messer Group to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Messer Group GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FERROMIX’ for goods in classes 1 and 4 — application No 3 190 063

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘FERROMAXX’ for goods in class 1

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all goods in class 1; opposition rejected in respect of all goods in class 4

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal brought by the applicant (R 1270/2005-2) dismissed; appeal brought by Messer Group GmbH (R 1408/2005-2) upheld

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal among others:

               —

               overestimated the knowledge and awareness of non professional consumers of welding gas;

               —

               erroneously assumed that the trade mark ‘FERROMAXX’ was inherently weak;

               —

               did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the goods in question are partially identical, partially highly similar; and

               —

               failed to consider the overall impression of the marks as a whole.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-41/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg): VAG-Händlerbeirat eV v. SYD-Consult (Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Selective distribution system - Imperviousness of the system as a precondition for its enforceability against third parties)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 252/3
2 . Such rules cannot be justified by reasons relating to             enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not
     the general interest in maintaining industrial peace as          enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious.
     a means of bringing a collective labour dispute to an
     end and thereby preventing any adverse effects on an             (') OJNoC 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
     economic sector, and consequently on the economy of
     the State.
H OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 in Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 (references for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm):
                        (Sixth Chamber)                               Land Nordrhein-Westfalen              v. Kari Uecker   and Vera
                         of 5 June 1997                                              Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (')
in Case C-41/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               (Freedom of movement for workers — Right of a spouse
the Landgericht Hamburg): VAG-Handlerbeirat eV v.                     of a Community national who has the nationality of a
                         SYD-Consult C )                              non-member country to be employed — Situation purely
                                                                                internal to a Member State)
(Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/05 )
No 123/85 — Selective distribution system —
 'Imperviousness ' of the system as a precondition for its
              enforceability against third parties)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                          ( 97/C 252/04 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: German)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 : references to the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamm,
                                                                       Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before that court between Land Nordrhein
                                                                       Westfalen and Kari Uecker and between Vera Jacquet and
 In Case C-41 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — on the interpretation of
 of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht ( Regional Court)               Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and Articles 7 ( 1 ) and 11
 Hamburg ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                   of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of
 proceedings pending before that court between VAG                     15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
 Handlerbeirat      eV    and    SYD-Consult      —     on   the       within the Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968
 interpretation of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and                ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber), composed of:
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                  J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), President of the
  1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EEC                Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-R Puissochet, Judges; N.
 Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution             Fennelly, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
 and servicing agreements ( OJ No L 15 , 18 . 1 . 1985 , p. 16 )        judgment on 5 June 1997, the operative part of which is
 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.                       as follows :
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, G.
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
 Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,                     A national of a non-member country married to a worker
  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               having the nationality of a Member State cannot rely on
  judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:                       the right conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                        freedom of movement for workers within the Community
  Neither Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty nor Commission                when that worker has never exercised the right to freedom
  Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on                      of movement within the Community.
  the application of Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty to
  certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                   (M OJNoC 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  servicing agreements is to be interpreted as precluding the
  application of national case-law on unfair competition
  under which a selective distribution system, even if


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2002 in Case T-233/00: Scanbox Entertainment A/S v Commission of the European Communities (Programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Automatic support for distribution — Recipient company)

text:
C 323/32                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
1.     Annuls Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                     2000), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC       of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
       Treaty (IV/32.150 — Eurovision);                                     Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:
2.     Orders the Commission to pay its own costs, together with
       those of the applicants and of the intervener Reti Televisive
       Italiane Spa;                                                        1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 30 June 2000,
                                                                                refusing to acknowledge the eligibility of the applicant for the
3.     Orders DSF Deutsches SportFernsehen GmbH to bear the costs                  Programme encouraging the development and distribution of
       of its intervention;                                                        European audiovisual works (MEDIA II — Development and
                                                                                distribution) (1996-2000);
4.     Orders the intervener Union européenne de radio-télévision to
       bear its own costs, together with those incurred by Métropole        2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
       télévision SA, Antena 3 de Televisión SA and SIC — Sociedade
       Independente de Comunicação SA for their interventions;
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
5.     Orders the intervener Radiotelevisión Española to bear its own
       costs, together with those incurred by Antena 3 de Televisión
       SA for its intervention;
6.     Orders Gestevisión Telecinco SA to bear the costs it incurred in
       connection with the intervention of the Union européenne de
       radio-télévision and of Radiotelevisión Española.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000, C 302 of 21.10.2000 and C 355 of
     9.12.2000.                                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
                                                                            in Joined Case T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi
                                                                            and Evi Hainz against Commission of the European
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           Communities ( 1)
                          of 15 October 2002                                (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Article 29(1) of the
                                                                            Staff Regulations — Priority of officials — Rejection of
in Case T-233/00: Scanbox Entertainment A/S v Com-                          candidatures of temporary members of staff — Appointment
            mission of the European Communities (1)                         of an official — Prohibition of discrimination — Statement
                                                                            of reasons — Interests of the service — Fourth and fifth
                                                                            paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of employment of
(Programme encouraging the development and distribution                     other servants — Duty to have regard for the interests of
of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Automatic                                             officials — Vacancy notice)
         support for distribution — Recipient company)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/51)
                            (2002/C 323/50)
                      (Language of the case: Danish)                                              (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-233/00, Scanbox Entertainment A/S, established in
Farum (Denmark), represented by T. Steffensen, lawyer, v                    In Joined Cases T-330/00 and T-114/01: Stefano Cocchi and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: N. Ras-                     Evi Hainz, former members of the temporary staff of the
mussen and H. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in Varese
the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2000 refusing to                       (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers,
recognise the applicant’s eligibility for the programme encour-             with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
aging the development and distribution of European audiovisu-               mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
al works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-                   D. Waelbroeck), application:


title: Case T-229/02: Action brought on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly on behalf of Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 233/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28.9.2002
Action brought on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on                              considered under the Regulation must be presently
behalf of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly                        engaged in terrorism. In fact, since July 1999, the PKK
on behalf of Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) against                         has dropped its demand for Kurdish independence and
               the Council of the European Union                               has merely sought the recognition, through peaceful and
                                                                               political means,
                         (Case T-229/02)
                                                                          —    Breach of internationally recognised right of self-determi-
                                                                               nation, of cultural, civil and political rights.
                         (2002/C 233/56)
                                                                          —    Breach of fundamental rights of expression and associ-
                   (Language of the case: English)                             ation.
                                                                          —    Breach of other principles of Community Law such as
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        proportionality, certainty, equality and right to a fair
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     hearing.
Communities on 31 July 2002 by Osman Ocalan on behalf of
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly on behalf of                —    Misuse of power, in that the Council’s inclusion of the
Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), represented by Mark                         PKK in the list in question should be as a result of
Muller, barrister, Edward Grieves, barrister, instructed by                    political pressure from Turkey and not as a result of any
Gareth Pierce, partner at Birnberg, Peirce and partners, 14                    meaningful application of the aforesaid criteria to the
Inverness Street, London NW1 7HJ, UK.                                          facts.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     declare void the Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May
      2002 and the attendant decision dated 17 June 2002 in
      respect of its proscription of the PKK,
—     alternatively declare Regulation 2508/2001 illegal in
      respect of its application to the applicants,
                                                                          Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli and
                                                                          the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO) against
—     order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
      applicants in the present proceedings,
—     order the Council to pay damages.                                                            (Case T-231/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/57)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The present Application is brought for partial annulement of
decisions 2002/334/EC and its successor 2002/460/EC, which
places PKK upon the EU terrorist list. These decisions were
made pursuant to the challenged Regulation no 2580/2001.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
On support of its conclusions, the Applicants submit the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
following grounds:                                                        European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Piero Gonnelli
                                                                          and the Associazione Italiana Frantoiani Oleari (AIFO), rep-
                                                                          resented by Ugo Scuro, lawyer.
—     Failure to apply the criteria to the correct facts and/or
      have regard to the law of armed conflict where relevant.
      It is stated on this topic that the Council has imposed a
      ban upon a non-existent (recently disolved), organisation,          The applicants claim that the Court should:
      which, by definition, was incapable of being presently or
      in the future engaged in terrorism. Alternatively, if which
      is denied, the PKK is held to continue to exist as an               —    annul in its entirety Commission Regulation (EC)
      organisation, the Council wholly failed to adhere to the                 No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards
      requirement that any putative organisation required to be                for olive oil, alternatively Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 thereof.


title: Case C-82/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain)) — Transportes Jordi Besora SL v Generalitat de Catalunya (Indirect taxes — Excise duties — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(2) — Mineral oils — Tax on retail sales — Concept of ‘specific purpose’  — Transfer of powers to the Autonomous Communities — Financing — Predetermined allocation — Health-care and environmental expenditure)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain)) — Transportes Jordi Besora SL v Generalitat de Catalunya
   (Case C-82/12) (1)

   ((Indirect taxes - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(2) - Mineral oils - Tax on retail sales - Concept of ‘specific purpose’ - Transfer of powers to the Autonomous Communities - Financing - Predetermined allocation - Health-care and environmental expenditure))
   2014/C 112/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Transportes Jordi Besora SL

      Respondent: Generalitat de Catalunya

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña — Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Mineral oils — Special tax on retail sales of certain hydrocarbons — Indirect taxes other than excise duty pursuing specific purposes — Tax pursuing an aim capable of being achieved by another harmonised tax — Tax established simultaneously with the transfer of certain powers to the regions and directed, in part, at supporting expenditure of the regions linked to the new powers transferred — Purely budgetary purpose

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that establishes a tax on the retail sale of mineral oils such as the tax on retail sales of certain hydrocarbons (Impuesto sobre las Ventas Minoristas de Determinados Hidrocarburos) at issue in the main proceedings, for such a tax cannot be regarded as pursuing a specific purpose within the meaning of that provision where that tax, intended to finance the exercise by the regional or local authorities concerned of their powers in the fields of health and the environment, is not itself directed at protecting health and the environment.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Industrie des Poudres Sphériques (IPS) against the Council of the European Union (Case T-2/95)

text:
No C 54/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4 . 3 . 95
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   — infringement of Articles 4 (4 ) and 2 ( 12 ) of the basic
Communities on 9 January 1995 by Christian Vahrenkamp,                   regulation and manifest error of assesment, in that the
Eggebek ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Dr               Commission found that the product imported from
Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen, with an address for                   China and Russia and the product manufactured in the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &                        Community were alike,
Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                     — infringement of Article 4 of the basic regulation and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              manifest error of assessment, in that the Council found
                                                                         that the Community industry had suffered material
order the defendants to pay compensation to the applicant                injury,
for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
amount of DM 30 705 plus 8 % interest with effect from               — infringement of Article 12 of the basic regulation and
2 November 1983 .                                                        manifest error of assessment, in that the Council
                                                                         concluded that the Community interest called for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          imposition of definitive measures,
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in          — infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, in that the
Case T-20/94 .                                                           Council failed to discharge its obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of reasons with regard to the complaint of
                                                                         abuse of a dominant position lodged by the applicant
                                                                         with DG IV,
                                                                     — misuse of powers, in that the Commission was party to
Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Industrie des Poudres                the use of an anti-dumping procedure for
Sphériques (IPS ) against the Council of the European                    anti-competitive purposes.
                               Union
                          (Case T-2/95 )                             In the alternative, the applicant claims that the regulation
                                                                     should be declared unenforceable against it on the grounds
                           ( 95/C 54/34)                             of manifest error of appreciation, in that the Council
                                                                     imposed anti-dumping duties generally on all imports of
                (Language of the case: French)                       calcium metal originating in the People's Republic of China
                                                                     and Russia .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 9 January 1995 by Industrie des Poudres
Sphériques (IPS), having its seat at Annemasse (France),
represented by Chantal Momège, of the Paris Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex            Action brought on 11 January 1995 by Hans-Theo
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                                        Wellmann against Council of the European Union and
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Case T-3/95 )
— primarily, annul Regulation ( EEC) No 2257/94 of                                           ( 95/C 54/35 )
    19 October 1994,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— in the alternative, declare it unenforceable against
    IPS,
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 11 January 1995 by Hans-Theo
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Wellmann, Rees ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                     represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
The applicant contends in support of its action that the             Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
contested regulation should be annulled for the following            Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
reasons :
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
— infringement of the basic regulation, Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2423/88 , and breach of the principle of legal
    certainty, in that, following the annulment of Regulation       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    No 2808/89 by the judgment of 11 June 1992, the
    Commission 'resumed the investigation',                          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 2 April
— infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the abovementioned                 1984 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 15 238,33
    basic regulation and of the applicant's rights to a fair             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May 1992
    hearing,                                                             and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Thessaloniki, by a decision of that court of 28 February 1995 in the case of Sigfried Klattner v. Greek State (Case C-389/95)

text:
No C 77/4             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.                Regulation, the skipper is presumed to be unaware of
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,                that status, unless the authorities taking action
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann,                         concerning the infringement prove otherwise.
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment          (>) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
on 16 January 1996 in which it:
I. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible.
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                                             ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber)
(!) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                                of 11 January 1996
                                                                     in Case C-89/95 P: Mr D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
                                                                     (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              ( 96/C 77/08 )
                      ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
                     of 18 January 1996
in Case C-276/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Kriminal- og Skifteret i Frederikshavn ): criminal                         published in the European Court Reports)
               proceedings against Finn Ohrt ( 1 )
(Definition of vessel engaged in a fisheries inspection —            In Case C-89/95 P: Mr D ( represented by Eric Boigelot) —
  Obligations of the skipper of the vessel to be inspected)          appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 77/07 )                            the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of
                                                                     26 January 1995 in Case T-549/93 [ 1995 ] ECR-SC 11-43
                                                                     between D and the Commission, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Maria Alves Vieira ) — the Court ( First Chamber),
         published in the European Court Reports)                    composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                     P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
In Case C-276/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     11 January 1996 , the operative part of which is as
of the EEC Treaty from the Kriminal- og Skifteret ( Criminal,        follows :
Bankruptcy and Probate Court), Frederikshavn ( Denmark ),
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
before that court against Finn Ohrt — on the interpretation          1 . The appeal is dismissed.
of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 1382/87 of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules                2 . The appellant shall pay the costs.
concerning the inspection of fishing vessels ( OJ No L 132,
1987, p. 11 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 18 January 1996 , in which it rules :
1 . Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1382/87              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
     of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules concerning           Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ),
     the inspection of fishing vessels must be interpreted as        Thessaloniki, by a decision of that court of 28 February
     meaning that every inspection vessel, regardless of type             1995 in the case of Sigfried Klattner v. Greek State
     or dimensions, must display the identification symbol or                                 ( Case C-389/95 )
     pennant described in Annex I to that Regulation.                                             ( 96/C 77/09 )
2 . The obligation to comply with the orders of a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     representative of the competent authority of a Member           European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
     State, under Article 3 of the Regulation, presupposes           Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki, of 28 February 1995 ,
     that the skipper of the vessel to be inspected is aware of      which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
     the status of that representative. In the absence of the         1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sigfried Klattner
     symbol or pennant required by Article 2 of the                  v. Greek State on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak---  16 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 77/5
 1 . In a case of temporary importation of certain means of             European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
      transport for private use within the Community, within            Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
      the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      83/182/EEC ( 1 ) of 28 March 1983 , is the exemption              European Communities on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios
      from taxes granted for a single private vehicle or for            Coussios, represented by Georges Sakellaropoulos and
      more than one ? Does the above Directive in fact                  residing at 3rd September Street, Athens .
      introduce a distinction between the number of private
      vehicles that it is possible to import temporarily on a           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      tax-exempt basis according to whether they are
      intended for private use or business use ?
                                                                        — declare the appeal admissible,
2. Is a specific obligation laid down in the Directive to the           — set aside jhe order of the Court of First Instance of
      effect that the competent Greek authorities should not                  11 October 1995 ('),
      restrict by legislation the parallel or simultaneous
      temporary importation tax-exempt of more than one                 — declare the application lodged on 28 September 1994 ( in
      private vehicle for private use by the same person ? Is it              Case T-302/94 ( 2 ) admissible,
      possible for an individual to rely on the provisions of
      Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 83/182/EEC against the
      authorities before a national court, claiming that the           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      rules contained in a provision of law are incompatible
      with those Articles ?                                             Pleas in law and main arguments:
3 . Is it compatible with the purpose and terms of the                  Infringement of Community law:
      Directive in question for the national legislature to
      provide that in a case of infringement of certain                — as regards the plea concerning the principle of sound
      provisions of a ministerial decision ( such as Article 8 ( 4 ),         administration :         the    Court  of First Instance had
      which does not allow the importation of a second means                  previously held that plea to be well founded in Case
      of transport by the same person ) adopted in order to                   T-68/92 ( 3 ), and could not legitimately consider that the
      bring national law into line with the provisions of the                 award to the applicant of ECU 2 000 extinguished the
      Directive, the applicable duties and other taxes, as well               plea ,
      as additional duty of the same amount, are payable
      immediately, in as much as it is shown that the                  — as regards the application of the principle of
      importation of a private vehicle is temporary and not                   proportionality,
      definitive ?
                                                                       — as regards the applicant's legal interest in bringing
4 . Is it compatible with the Community principle of                          proceedings : although the applicant's name did not
      proportionality for it to be provided that in the above                 appear on the list of suitable candidates in the open
      case additional duties equal to 100 % of the applicable                 competition, he at all times reserved his position
      duties and other taxes should be levied, regardless of the             concerning his participation in that competition.
      period that the second private vehicle remained in
      Greece ?                                                         ( ] ) Order of 11 October 1995 in Case T-302/94 ( OJ No C 353 ,
                                                                             9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 14 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994, p . 14 .
(') Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax
                                                                       ( 3 ) Judgment of 23 February 1994 ( OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 ,
     exemptions within the Community for certain means of                    p. 15 ).
     transport temporarily imported into one Member State from
     another ( OJ No L 105 , 1983 , p. 59 ).
                                                                       Action brought on 21 December 1995 by the Federal
Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Dimitrios                        Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Coussios against the order made on 11 October 1995 by the                                        European Communities
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                                                   ( Case C-3 99/95 )
European Communities in Case T-302/94 between
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/11 )
Dimitrios Coussios and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                       ( Case C-397/95 P)                              An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 77/ 10 )
                                                                       European Communities on 21 December 1995 by the
                                                                       Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst
An appeal against the order made on 11 October 1995 by                 Roder, Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Affairs, D-53107 Bonn.


title: Case C-488/03: Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 21/19
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                           (Case C-486/03)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                            (2004/C 21/34)                                       to a number of undertakings in Vizcaya (notified under
                                                                                No C(2001)1765) in the form of a tax credit of 45 % of
                                                                                the investments made, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                                notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Nov-                      its obligations under that decision;
ember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain            C-485/03.
      to a number of undertakings in Guipúzcoa (notified
      under No C(2001)1764) in the form of a tax credit of
      45 % of the investments made, or, in any event, by
      failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
      accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-488/03)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.                                                                                (2004/C 21/36)
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                           vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-487/03)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                            (2004/C 21/35)                                       period all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                                11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                                to a number of recently created undertakings in Álva
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                        (notified under No C(2001)1760) in the form of a tax
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                       credit of 45 % of the investments made, or, in any event,
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,                           by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions in
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,                    accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision;
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                (Case C-490/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 21/38)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-485/03.
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
                                                                        vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
  the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period all the measures necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-489/03)                                      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
                                                                              11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by Spain
                                                                              to certain recently established firms in Vizcaya (notified
                          (2004/C 21/37)                                      under No C(2001)1763, or, in any event, by failing to
                                                                              notify the Commission of such provisions in accordance
                                                                              with Article 4, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
                                                                              its obligations under that decision;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-              —     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
—     declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-485/03.
      period all the measures necessary to comply with
      Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision of
      11.7.2001 relating to a State aid scheme applied by
      Spain to a number of recently created undertakings in
      Guipúzcoa (notified under No C(2001)1761) in the form
      of a tax credit of 45% of the investments made, or, in any
      event, by failing to notify the Commission of such
      provisions in accordance with Article 4, the Kingdom of           Action brought on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 Novem-
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that             ber 2003) by the Republic of Austria against the Com-
      decision;                                                                     mission of the European Communities
—     Order the kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-492/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
C-485/03.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 November 2003 (fax on 13 November
                                                                        2003) by the Republic of Austria, represented by Dr Harald
                                                                        Dossi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 18 March 1997 in Case C-343/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Diego Calì & Figli Srl v. Servizi Ecologici Porto di Genova SpA (SEPG) (Harbour company - Prevention of pollution - Statutory monopoly - Abuse of a dominant position)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/3
1 . declares that by maintaining in force Article L 213-1             1 . dismisses the appeals;
     of the Code du Travail prohibiting nightwork by
     women in industry whereas no such prohibition exists
     in relation to men, the French Republic has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1 ) of Council           2 . orders Guérin Automobiles and the Commission of the
     Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                        European Communities to bear their own costs.
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
     men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
     vocational training and promotion, and working
     conditions:
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                                                                      in Case C-343/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Tribunale di Genova): Diego Cali & Figli Srl v. Servizi
                                                                               Ecologici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG) (')
                                                                      (Harbour company — Prevention of pollution — Statutory
                                                                              monopoly — Abuse of a dominant position)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/06
                        of 18 March 1997
in Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission
                of the European Communities (')                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
(Appeal — Competition — Complaint — Action for
failure to act — Notification under Article 6 of Regulation
No 99/63/EEC — Definition of a position terminating the
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         failure to act — Cross-appeal limited to costs)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 142/05 )
                                                                      In Case C-343/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova ( Italy) for
                  (Language of the case: French)                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                      that court between Diego Call & Figli Sri and Servizi Eco
                                                                      logici Porto di Genova SpA ( SEPG ), on the interpretation
                                                                      of Article 86 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of:
                                                                      G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Murray and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                      D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; G. Gosmas, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                      Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
In Case C-282/95 P: Guérin Automobiles ( represented by               judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it has ruled:
Jean-Claude Fourgoux), an appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-186/94 ([ 1995 ] ECR 11-1753 ), seeking to have
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           Article 86 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not
being the Commission of the European Communities                      being applicable to anti-pollution surveillance with which
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and Francisco Enrique                       a body governed by private law has been entrusted by the
Gonzalez-Diaz ), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez              public authorities in an oil port of a Member State, even
Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                 where port users must pay dues to finance that activity.
Almeida and J. L. Murray, Presidents of Chambers, C.         N.
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A.                O.       (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 3 . 1995 .
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,               H.
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;            G.
Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 18 March 1997, in which it:


title: Case T-200/08: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community trade mark FOODLUBE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)
   (Case T-200/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark FOODLUBE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 317/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Interflon BV (Rosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Wertwijn, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (Glenview, Illinois, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 August 2001 in Case T-111/01 R Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — State aid ﾀﾔ Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Urgency)

text:
16.2.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 44/15
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin)
                            INSTANCE                                       — application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                           of 12 September 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                         of 15 June 2001                                   applicant on 6 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance
                                                                           (Second Chamber), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
                                                                           dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
in Case T-339/00 R Bactria Industriehygiene-Service                        made an order on 25 October 2001, the operative part of
   GmbH v Commission of the European Communities                           which is as follows:
(Application for interim relief — Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 — Directive 98/8/EC — Urgency not estab-                      1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                               lished)
                                                                           2.   The applicant shall bear the costs;
                          (2002/C 44/27)
                                                                           3.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene
                                                                                made by the European Broadcasting Union.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
In Case T-339/00 R: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service GmbH,
established at Kirchheimbolanden (Germany), represented by
K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and L. Ström) —
application for suspension of operation of Article 6(2) and (3)
and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the
programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal                                             INSTANCE
products (OJ L 228, 2000, p. 6) — the President of the Court
of First Instance has made an order on 15 June 2001, the                                          of 2 August 2001
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      in Case T-111/01 R Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                           (Application for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                           ation of a measure — State aid — Legal interest in bringing
                                                                                proceedings — Urgency)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/29)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 25 October 2001
in Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6) v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                          In Case T-111/01: Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH, established in
                                                                           Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by P. von Woedtke, lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Objection of                     V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci) — application for the suspen-
inadmissibility — Decision confirming a contested decision
                                                                           sion of operation of Commission Decision C (2001) 1028 of
       within the prescribed period — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           28 March 2001 on State aid implemented by the Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co.
                          (2002/C 44/28)                                   Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, a
                                                                           holding company which includes Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Geräte GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA
                                                                           Kältetechnik GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik
                                                                           GmbH; SKL Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisen-
                                                                           gießerei GmbH; Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer
In Case T-354/00: Metropole télévision SA (M6), established                Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) — the President of the Court of First
in Paris (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an            Instance has made an order on 2 August 2001, the operative
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the               part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 22 October 2001
                                                                            in Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                              i Serveis v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Proceedings for interim relief — Fumus boni juris —
                                                                            Urgency — Withdrawal of Community financial assistance)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/31)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      of 12 September 2001
                                                                            In Case T-141/01 R: Entorn, Sociedat Limitada Enginyeria
                                                                            i Serveis, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by
in Case T-139/01 R Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                       M.C. Belard-Kopke Marques-Pinto, lawyer, with an address for
Europe Ltd. & Co. v Commission of the European                              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                            Communities                                     Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and S. Pardo Quintillán) —
                                                                            application for suspension of the operation of Commission
                                                                            Decision C(1999) 534 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Com-
(Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana                    munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility —                    First Instance made an order on 22 October 2001, the
Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional                    operative part of which is as follows:
                    nature of the relief sought)
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                           (2002/C 44/30)                                   2.    Costs are reserved.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-139/01 R: Comafrica SpA, having its registered                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
office in Genoa (Italy) and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd. & Co,                                           INSTANCE
having its registered office in Hamburg (Germany), represented
by Mr. B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and Mr. P.B.G. Martin, Barrister,                                    of 18 October 2001
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
X. Lewis and C. Van der Hauwaert) — application for                         in Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessaloni-
suspension of Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of                          kis v Commission of the European Communities
7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for
                                                                            (Interlocutory proceedings — EAGGF — Withdrawal of
importing bananas into the Community and Commission
                                                                                financial assistance — Urgency — None)
Regulation (EC) No 1121/2001 of 7 June 2001 fixing the
adjustment coefficient to be applied to each traditional oper-
ator’s reference quantity under the tariff quotas for imports of                                       (2002/C 44/32)
bananas — the President of the Court of First Instance has
made an order on 12 September 2001, the operative part of                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
which is as follows:
                                                                            In Case T-196/01 R: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis,
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                      represented by D. Nikopoulos, lawyer, v Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) —
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                   application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s
                                                                            decision C(2001) 1284 of 8 June 2001 withdrawing Com-
                                                                            munity financial assistance — the President of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance made an order on 18 October 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-547/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/35

         Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-547/07)
   (2008/C 51/58)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               by failing to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) for birds all areas which, on the application of ornithological criteria, appear to be the most appropriate for the conservation of bird species, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The obligation to carry out the classification of special protection areas for birds (SPAs) was imposed on the Republic of Poland at the time of its accession to the European Union.
   In December 2004 an ornithological inventory was published which detailed the situation of birds of European significance in Poland (IBA 2004) and designated, on the basis of ornithological criteria, 140 areas of crucial importance for the conservation of birds.
   Of the areas included on the IBA 2004 list, 15 were not classified by the Republic of Poland as SPAs, notwithstanding the fact that the Polish authorities failed to produce any scientific evidence to justify that failure to designate them.
   Furthermore, the areas of 8 SPAs are much smaller than their equivalents on the IBA 2004 inventory, with the result that outside their limits there are areas which, according to IBA 2004, would appear to be most suitable for the conservation of bird species.
   In addition, in September 2007 the Polish authorities, without notifying the Commission, reduced the areas of 5 designated SPAs in a manner impacting significantly on bird conservation.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.


title: Case C-260/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Environment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 85/337/EEC — Directive 2003/35/EC — Article 10a — Directive 96/61/EC — Article 15a — Access to justice in environmental matters — Meaning of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos v Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-260/11) (1)

   (Environment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 85/337/EEC - Directive 2003/35/EC - Article 10a - Directive 96/61/EC - Article 15a - Access to justice in environmental matters - Meaning of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings)
   2013/C 156/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: David Edwards, Lilian Pallikaropoulos

      Defendants: Environment Agency, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Interpretation of Article 15a of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC — Interpretation of Article 9(4) of the (Aarhus) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters concluded, on behalf of the European Community, by Decision of the Council of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — An order that the unsuccessful party pay the costs of the proceedings — Meaning of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ judicial proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The requirement, under the fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and the fifth paragraph of Article 15a of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, that judicial proceedings should not be prohibitively expensive means that the persons covered by those provisions should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts that falls within the scope of those articles by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result. Where a national court is called upon to make an order for costs against a member of the public who is an unsuccessful claimant in an environmental dispute or, more generally, where it is required — as courts in the United Kingdom may be — to state its views, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, on a possible capping of the costs for which the unsuccessful party may be liable, it must satisfy itself that that requirement has been complied with, taking into account both the interest of the person wishing to defend his rights and the public interest in the protection of the environment.
   In the context of that assessment, the national court cannot act solely on the basis of that claimant’s financial situation but must also carry out an objective analysis of the amount of the costs. It may also take into account the situation of the parties concerned, whether the claimant has a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what is at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the potentially frivolous nature of the claim at its various stages, and the existence of a national legal aid scheme or a costs protection regime.
   By contrast, the fact that a claimant has not been deterred, in practice, from asserting his claim is not of itself sufficient to establish that the proceedings are not prohibitively expensive for him.
   Lastly, that assessment cannot be conducted according to different criteria depending on whether it is carried out at the conclusion of first-instance proceedings, an appeal or a second appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case F-124/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/72

         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA
   (Case F-124/12)
   2013/C 26/148
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the AACC’s decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant, under Article 2(a) of the CEOS;

               —

               if necessary, annul the reply rejecting his claim seeking renewal of his contract;

               —

               order the EMCDDA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-160/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Internet — Hyperlinks giving access to protected works, made accessible on another website without the rightholder’s consent — Works not yet published by the rightholder — Posting of such links for a profit)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker
   (Case C-160/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet - Hyperlinks giving access to protected works, made accessible on another website without the rightholder’s consent - Works not yet published by the rightholder - Posting of such links for a profit))
   (2016/C 402/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GS Media BV

      Defendants: Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to protected works, which are freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a person who did not know or could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.