title: Case C-147/00: Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
24.6.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/13
3. Do the abovementioned services fall within the scope of             represented by J.F. Pasquier, Legal Adviser, and G. Valero
    Article 13(A)(1)(g) of Regulation 77/388/EEC and can a             Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    taxable person rely on that provision?                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that:
                                                                           — by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
                                                                                within 10 years following the notification of this
                                                                                Directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the
                                                                                limit values set in accordance with the directive,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                       contrary to Article 4(1) of the directive;
hof by order of that court of 5 April 2000 in the criminal
           proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann                           — by failing to carry out sampling operations, the mini-
                                                                                mum frequency of which is laid down in the Annex in
                                                                                respect of all parameters and all bathing waters,
                        (Case C-144/00)                                         contrary to Article 6(1) of the directive; and
                        (2000/C 176/22)                                    — by failing to carry out the sampling operations for
                                                                                ‘total coliform’, the French Republic has failed to take
                                                                                all the measures necessary to comply with Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          76/160/EEC (1) its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                          and 6 of the directive;
5 April 2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                           the French Republic has failed to take all the measures
Matthias Hoffmann on the following questions:
                                                                           necessary to comply with its obligations under Directive
                                                                           76/160/EEC and has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1. Is Article 13(A)(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive                   Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that directive.
    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —             2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
    assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) to be interpreted as
    meaning that the term ‘other [recognised] cultural bodies’
    used therein also covers a soloist who supplies cultural           Pleas in law and main arguments
    services?
                                                                       — The Commission finds that a substantial number of
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative:                   bathing areas in 1995 did not conform to the obligations
                                                                           concerning water quality more than 10 years after those
                                                                           obligations entered into force. Moreover, the results avail-
    Do restrictions arise from the heading ‘... activities in the          able for the subsequent years, like those for 1995, do not
    public interest’ chosen in Article 13(A), for example where            conform to water quality standards. Since the directive
    performances by soloists serve primarily commercial pur-               imposes on the Member States a clear and unconditional
    poses?                                                                 obligation as to the result to be achieved, namely as regards
                                                                           ensuring that the value limits are complied with, the
                                                                           Commission finds that the French Republic has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under the directive.
                                                                       — Despite the fact that sampling is clearly and uncon-
                                                                           ditionally required to be carried out by the competent
                                                                           authorities of the Member States under Community law,
Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of                       no steps have yet been taken to remedy the complaint that
 the European Communities against the French Republic                      sampling has been carried out insufficiently frequently in
                                                                           respect of all French parameters and bathing waters.
                        (Case C-147/00)                                    Finally, the Commission considers that it is unjustified to
                                                                           calculate and present to the public a figure relating to
                        (2000/C 176/23)                                    conformity arrived at by taking account only of the such
                                                                           parameters as have been correctly measured. The method
                                                                           used by the French authorities amounts to ignoring the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               fact that certain areas which have been incorrectly sampled
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April                   could well not be in conformity with the absolute value
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        limits laid down by the directive.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
— By having ceased, with effect from the 1995 bathing                         (b) Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997 (2)
     season, measuring the ‘total coliform’ parameter, despite it                  amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive
     still being part of the applicable Community legislation                      72/462/EEC with regard to the rules applicable to
     concerning bathing water quality, the French authorities                      minced meat, meat preparations and certain other
     have infringed a clear obligation incumbent upon them                         products of animal origin;
     under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the directive. The technical
     arguments deployed by the said authorities to justify
     their choice cannot justify, by themselves, the unilateral               (c) Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 (3)
     abandonment of a clear and incontestable obligation under                     laying down certain measures for implementing
     Community law. Article 7 of the directive offers Member                       Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the con-
     States the possibility of taking stricter measures than those                 ditions and arrangements for approving and registering
     provided for; measuring additional parameters would thus                      certain establishments and intermediaries operating in
     be in conformity with the requirements of the directive.                      the animal feed sector;
     The same cannot be said for the replacement of a
     mandatory with a non-mandatory parameter or for the                      and by failing to communicate such provisions, it has
     abandonment of one of the mandatory parameters.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and
                                                                              under the Treaty.
     Finally, the Commission points out that the unilateral
     abandonment of a parameter also affects the results
     included in the annual report on the bathing waters of the           2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     European Union by removing one factor for comparison.
     That situation moreover is unhelpful and confuses the
     person in the street as well as the media which report on
     water quality on the basis of that source.                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), under
    the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).                    which a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                          upon the Member State to which it is addressed, entails an
                                                                          obligation on Member States to adhere to the time-limits for
                                                                          transposition laid down by a directive. Those time-limits
                                                                          expired without the Italian Republic’s having enacted the
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with the directives cited by the
                                                                          Commission in its application.
Action brought on 18 April 2000 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   (1) OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33.
                                                                          (2) OJ 1998 L 10, p. 25.
                                                                          (3) OJ 1998 L 208, p. 43.
                          (Case C-148/00)
                          (2000/C 176/24)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 April
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Stefania Dragone and Francesco P. Ruggeri
Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la            Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            the European Communities against the French Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case C-152/00)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                (2000/C 176/25)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     (a) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 (1)                   An action against the French Republic was brought before the
          amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC,                     Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
          86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of             2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
          maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,                represented by Léna Ström and Jean-Francis Pasuier, Legal
          respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of      Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
          animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
          including fruit and vegetables;                                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-576/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Scope ratione temporis — Public works concession — Sale of land by a public body — Construction project established by that body for the redevelopment of public spaces)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-576/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Scope ratione temporis - Public works concession - Sale of land by a public body - Construction project established by that body for the redevelopment of public spaces)
   2013/C 252/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, A. Tokár and C. Zadra, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and J. Langer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 2 and Title III of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Public works concession — Rules — Municipality of Eindhoven

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-108/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 29 February 2012 — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) lodged on 29 February 2012 — SC Volksbank România SA v Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea
   (Case C-108/12)
   2012/C 151/29
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Vâlcea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Volksbank România SA

      Defendants: Ionuț-Florin Zglimbea, Liana-Ramona Zglimbea

      Question referred

   Can Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘the main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘price’, as referred to in that provision, cover the elements which make up the consideration to which a credit institution is entitled by virtue of a consumer credit agreement, that is to say, the annual percentage rate of charge under a consumer credit agreement (as defined in Directive 2008/48 (2) on credit agreements for consumers), formed in particular by the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, bank commissions, and the other fees included and defined in the agreement?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 1987 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case C-65/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/15

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-65/06)
   (2006/C 86/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ramón Vidal Puig and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides: ‘The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. Article 19 provides that Regulation No 261/2004 was to enter into force on 17 February 2005. According to the information before the Commission, Belgium has not as yet laid down any sanctions for infringements of the Regulation which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-6/08 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07: U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/29

         Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07: U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-6/08 P)
   (2008/C 64/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: US Steel Košice, s.r.o. (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor, E. Vermulst, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07 U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v. Commission

               —

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the substance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the appeal is based on errors of law committed by the Court of First Instance in relation to its application of the principles guiding the admissibility of actions and in the interpretation of Directive 2003/87 (1), as well as the distortion (denaturation) of the contested decision by the Court.

               1.

               The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that the contested decision rejected the plan of the Slovak Government to grant a specified amount of allowances to the appellant.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that the contested decision inevitably led to and indeed explicitly required a reduction in the appellant's allowances.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise the procedural similarity of the contested decision with a State aid or merger control decision;

                           —

                           the fundamental aspects of the procedure under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 are similar to State aid and merger control;

                           —

                           the contested decision in fact made a State aid appraisal of the appellant's allowances.

               4.

               The Court of First Instance wrongly identified a ‘discretion’ in the ‘implementation’ of the contested decision.

         In short, the appellant maintains that it is directly concerned by the contested decision which rejected a formal plan to grant emissions allowances to the appellant, inevitably reduced the allowances that the appellant would be allocated, and indeed explicitly required those allowances to be reduced.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 275, p. 32).


25.11.2000            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 335/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-265/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-268/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/72)                                                      (2000/C 335/75)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-265/98 (reference for a preliminary           the register of Case C-268/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Compañ Calbuig.               Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Marı́a Casas
                                                                     Minguélez.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-266/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/73)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-269/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 335/76)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-266/98 (reference for a preliminary           By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v Gianfranco Caminati.                the register of Case C-269/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Planeta Crédito SA v Antonio Villar Castelao.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-267/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/74)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-270/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                    (2000/C 335/77)
the register of Case C-267/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rafael Bogas         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Cardeñosa.                                                          the register of Case C-270/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Salvat Artel SA v Pilar López Aznar.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-94/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2016 by LTJ Diffusion against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2015 in Case T-83/14 LTJ Diffusion v EUIPO — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/8

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2016 by LTJ Diffusion against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2015 in Case T-83/14 LTJ Diffusion v EUIPO — Arthur et Aston (ARTHUR & ASTON)
   (Case C-94/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: LTJ Diffusion (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   Arthur et Aston SAS
   By order of 15 June 2016 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-540/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 24 October 2011 — Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag v État Belge, SPF Finances

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium), lodged on 24 October 2011 — Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag v État Belge, SPF Finances
      (Case C-540/11)
      (2012/C 25/53)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Claimants: Daniel Levy and Carine Sebbag

         Defendants: État Belge — SPF Finances

         Question referred

      Is a Member State acting in compliance with Community law, and specifically in compliance with Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC, 57[2] EC and 293 EC, if it undertakes, in a double taxation convention with another Member State, to eliminate the double taxation of dividends resulting from the division of the power of taxation laid down in that convention but subsequently amends its national law in such a way that such double taxation is no longer relieved?


title: Case C-279/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 May 2013 — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 22 May 2013 — C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg
   (Case C-279/13)
   2013/C 207/55
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C More Entertainment AB

      Defendant: Linus Sandberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) (1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work?

               2.

               Is the manner in which the linking is done relevant to the answer to question 1?

               3.

               Is it relevant if the access to the work to which the linking is done is in any way restricted?

               4.

               May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of rightholders by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?

               5.

               May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?

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


title: Case C-495/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others

text:
21.4.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/9
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                If not:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                            1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
                                                                            provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                            prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
If not:                                                                     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                            in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                            provisions?
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                 as meaning that the individual reference quantity need
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not             not necessarily be notified separately to each producer,
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                  but may be communicated in other ways such as the
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                   publication of notices?
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
     provisions?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole
Amministrativo Regionale per il. Lazio by judgment of                  Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi
that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Carlo Balestreri              nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the                                             and Others
Budget and Planning, the other party being Parmalat SpA
                                                                                (Case C-495/00)
                        (Case C-484/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/14)
                        (2001/C 118/13)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
European Communities by judgment of 6 July 2000 of the                 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at           the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v
ruling in the case of Carlo Balestreri against Azienda di Stato        Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry        (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind.
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning, the other party being        Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others on the following
Parmalat SpA, on the following questions:                              questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or             meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                    quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
If not:                                                                      Is the reference in Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to
                                                                             Article 7(1) of the directive a lex specialis in relation to
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                      Article 7(2) of the directive, with the result that a national
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      standard governing misleading statements which is poss-
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                      ibly more strict may be applied to all elements of the
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                  comparison?
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                    Is Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to be interpreted as
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies             meaning that the comparison of the price of a brand-
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those               name product with the price of a no-name product of
     provisions?                                                             equivalent quality is not permitted where the name of the
                                                                             manufacturer is not indicated, or do Article 3a(1)(c) and
(3) If retrospective adjustment is not possible, does the                    Article 3a(1)(g) of the directive preclude indication of the
     Community legislation permit the Member State to                        manufacturer? Is the image of a (brand-name) product a
     assume responsibility for paying the sums owed to the                   feature of the product/service within the meaning of
     Community without incurring liability to penalties?                     Article 3a(c) of the directive? Does it follow from a
                                                                             (possible) negative answer to this question that any (price)
                                                                             comparison of a brand-name product with a no-name
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                             product of equivalent quality is not permitted?
                                                                        2.   Is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                             that differences in the procurement of the product/service
                                                                             whose features are compared with features of the adver-
                                                                             tiser’s product/service must also be assessed solely on the
                                                                             basis of Article 3a of the directive?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Ge-
richtshof by order of 19 December 2000 in the case of
Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co KG v 1. Hartlauer                                If this question is answered in the affirmative:
Handelsgesellschaft mbH and 2. Estate of Franz Josef
                            Hartlauer
                                                                             Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
                         (Case C-44/01)                                      that a (price) comparison is permitted only if the com-
                                                                             pared goods are procured through the same distribution
                        (2001/C 118/15)                                      channels and are thus offered by the advertiser and his
                                                                             competitor(s) in a comparable selection?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 19 December 2000 by the                3.   Is ‘comparison’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the
Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, which was                      directive to be construed as including the creation of the
received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a                     bases for comparison through a test purchase?
preliminary ruling in the case of Pippig Augenoptik GmbH &
Co. KG v 1. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and 2. Estate
of Franz Josef Hartlauer on the following questions:
                                                                             If this question is answered in the affirmative:
1.   Is Article 7(2) of Directive 97/55/EC (1)   of the European
     Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
     amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-                   Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
     ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising                that the deliberate initiation of a (price) comparison
     (‘the directive’) to be interpreted to the effect that                  which is favourable to the advertiser through a test
     ‘comparative advertising, as far as the comparison is                   purchase which is made before the beginning of the
     concerned’ means the statements regarding the product                   advertiser’s own offer and is arranged accordingly makes
     offered by the advertiser himself, the statements regarding             the comparison unlawful?
     the product offered by the competitor and the statements
     regarding the relationship between the two products (the
     result of the comparison)? Or is there a ‘comparison’              4.   Is a comparison discrediting within the meaning of
     within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the directive only                Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive if the advertiser selects the
     in so far as the statements are made regarding the                      goods purchased from the competitor in such a way that
     result of the comparison, with the consequence that                     a price difference is obtained which is greater than the
     misconceptions regarding other features of the compared                 average price difference and/or if such price comparisons
     goods/services may be assessed on the basis of a national               are repeatedly made with the result that the impression is
     standard governing misleading statements which is poss-                 created that the prices of the competitor(s) are generally
     ibly more strict?                                                       excessive?


title: Case C-173/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale di Genova by order of that Court of 20 March 2003 in the action brought by Fallimento "raghetti del Mediterraneo"SPA, in liquidation, against Italian Republic

text:
C 158/10               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.7.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale di                  J.R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Delvolvé, lawyers. The appellant
Genova by order of that Court of 20 March 2003 in the                      claims that the Court should:
action brought by Fallimento ‘raghetti del Mediterraneo’-
        SPA, in liquidation, against Italian Republic
                                                                           principally:
                         (Case C-173/03)
                                                                           —     declare that the appeal is admissible and founded,
                         (2003/C 158/17)
                                                                           —     set aside the second point of the operative part of the
                                                                                judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
                                                                                26 February 2003 in Case T-145/01;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale di Genova
(Genoa District Court) of 20 March 2003, received at the                   in the alternative:
Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the action brought by Fallimento ’Traghetti del Mediterraneo’              —     annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority
SPA, in liquidation, against Italian Republic on the following                   of 10 August 2000 not to acknowledge the occupational
questions:                                                                       origin of his arthritic symptoms following his request of
                                                                                7 May 1996;
1.   Is a Member State liable on the basis of non-contractual
     liability to individual citizens for errors by its own judges
     in the application of Community law or the failure to                 in any event:
     apply it correctly and in particular the failure by a court
     of last instance to discharge the obligation to make a                —     make an order as to costs in accordance with the
     reference to the Court of Justice under the third paragraph                 applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
     of Article 234.
2.   Where a Member State is deemed liable for the errors of
     its own judges in the application of Community law and
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
     in particular for failure by a court of last instance to make
     a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC,
     is affirmation of that liability negated in a manner                  —     First ground of appeal: Breach, by the Commission, of
     incompatible with the principles of Community law by                        Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3(2) of the
     national legislation on State liability for judicial errors                 Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
                                                                                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
     which:
                                                                                pational Disease:
     —     precludes liability in relation to the interpretation of              The appellant contests the finding of the Court of First
           provisions of law and assessment of facts and of the
                                                                                Instance that the Commission, in refusing to acknowledge
           evidence adduced in the course of the exercise of                     the occupational origin of his arthritic lesions on the
           judicial activity,
                                                                                ground that it had not been sufficiently established, had
     —     limits State liability solely to cases of fraud and                   not infringed either Article 73 of the Staff Regulations or
           serious default on the part of the judge?                             Article 3(2) of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
                                                                                the European Communities against the Risk of Accident
                                                                                and of Occupational Disease.
                                                                           —     Second ground of appeal: Infringement of the delimi-
                                                                                tation of the powers of Medical Committees
Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by B. Latino against the                         The appellant claims that the Commission and the Court
judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First                              of First Instance are in breach of the general principle of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                           law ‘semper in dubiis benigniora preferenda sunt’ in the
Communities in Case T-145/01 between B. Latino and the                           case of doubt as to the real cause of the symptoms and
        Commission of the European Communities                                   that there were irregularities in the procedure of the
                                                                                Medical Committee. The second reference to the Medical
                        (Case C-180/03 P)                                        Committee was improper, first because once it had given
                                                                                its first opinion, the Committee had become ‘functus
                         (2003/C 158/18)                                         officio’ and, secondly, because since it had already given
                                                                                its opinion and included a member of the Medical Service
                                                                                of the Commission, it did not fulfil the conditions
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February                          of independence and impartiality required. Lastly, the
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                      absence of Community rules on the procedure to be
the European Communities in Case T-145/01 between B. La-                         followed obliges Medical Committees to comply with the
tino and the Commission of the European Communities                              instructions which they receive from the institutions.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 April 2003 by B. Latino, represented by


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-151/94: British Steel plc v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
C 160/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.6.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 11 March 1999                                                            of 11 March 1999
in Case T-151/94: British Steel plc v. Commission of the                    in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, SL v.
                     European Communities (1)                                       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                             (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                 undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                       concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
            Systems for the exchange of information)                                    Systems for the exchange of information)
                           (1999/C 160/31)                                                             (1999/C 160/32)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
In case T-151/94: British Steel plc, having its registered office           In case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, SL, having its
in London, represented by Philip G. H. Collins and John                     registered office in Madrid, represented by Antonio Creus and,
E. Pheasant, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxem-              initially, by Xavier Ruiz Calzado, and, subsequently, by Natalia
bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, v.                      Lacalle, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                   Brussels at the Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78, avenue d’Auder-
Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz and Géraud Sajust de Bergues,                ghem, v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy                  initially Julian Currall, Francisco Enrique González-Diaz and
Charrier, assisted by James Flynn) — application, principally,              Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost,
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                     Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Ricardo Garcı́a
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article               Vicente) — application for the annulment of Commission
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                   Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                     proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concern-
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                        ing agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                        pean producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,              Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,             sition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:                         A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
                                                                            1999, in which it:
1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted              1. fixes at 7 100 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the
     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as            applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
     it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement to share           16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     the Italian market which lasted three months,                               65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
                                                                                practices engaged in by European producers of beams,
2. sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
     of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 20 000 000,                             2. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                   3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay three
                                                                                quarters of the defendant’s costs, including those incurred in the
                                                                                interim proceedings. The defendant shall bear one quarter of its
4. orders the applicant to bear its own costsand to pay half of the              own costs.
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.                                                    (1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.


title: Case T-280/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (ANEURYSMCONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/46

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (ANEURYSMCONTROL)
   (Case T-280/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1432/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEURYSMCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case T-195/00: Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Thomas Cook Group Limited and Interpayment Services Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 302/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Thomas Cook Group                     Action brought on 26 July 2000 by Luc Verheyden against
Limited and Interpayment Services Limited against the                          the Commission of the European Communities
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-196/00)
                        (Case T-195/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/65)
                        (2000/C 302/64)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Luc Verheyden,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
European Communities on 26 July 2000 by Thomas Cook                     Brussels Bar.
Group Limited and Interpayment Services Limited, represented
by Claude Delcorde and Edward Kling of Dechert Price &
Rhoads, Brussels.                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision not to promote the applicant, during
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   the course of the 1999 promotions procedure, to gra-
                                                                              de A 4 in a correspondingly higher step, in accordance
                                                                              with the Staff Regulations and with retroactive effect
—     order, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 288                  from 10 October 1989, as results from the exclusion of
      EC, the Commission to make good the damage caused                       his name from the list of persons promoted, which
      to the applicants by paying them the sum of GBP                         was published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1082 of
      25,5 million;                                                           13 August 1999;
—     order interest to be paid on the said sum at the annual           —     order the payment, by way of compensation for non-
      rate of 6 % from the date of judgment until the date of                 material damage, of the sum of BEF 500 000
      payment; and                                                            (12 394,68 euro), together with interest at the rate of 8 %
                                                                              per annum from the date of the judgment to be delivered
                                                                              until payment in full;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that the sign which the Commission
adopted as the sign for the euro is substantially similar to one        The applicant in the present case objects to the fact that he was
of their own registered logos. The Commission’s use and                 not promoted to grade A 4 during the period corresponding to
inducement of third parties to use the euro sign amounts thus           1999.
to a trade mark infringement. The Commission failed to avoid
the evisceration of the logo and thus violated the principle of
respect for vested rights, the principle of the protection of           In support of his claims, he asserts that the appointing
legitimate expectations and the principles of non-discrimi-             authority infringed the second paragraph of Article 25 and
nation and of proportionality. Moreover, the Commission’s               Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
failure constitutes an unlawful expropriation of the applicants’        general principles of equality, the duty to have regard for the
property.                                                               welfare and interests of officials, the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations and the obligation to state reasons, by failing to
                                                                        take into account his merits and the extremely lengthy period
To the extent that the Commission acted lawfully, the burden            for which he has occupied his present grade, and that this has
of that action falls disproportionately and unfairly on the             placed him in a totally abnormal administrative situation, both
applicants and constitutes a ‘Sonderopfer’ and ‘rupture d’égalité       in view of the career prospects normally open to all officials in
devant les charges publiques’ giving rise to compensation.              a position identical or comparable to his and in the light of his
                                                                        objective expectations and merits.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 19 February 2004 In Case C-310/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   19 February 2004
   In Case C-310/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 1999/44/EC)
   (2004/C 94/16)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-310/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin), against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.09.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2002 in Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott — fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectation)

text:
C 156/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
4.    Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs, including                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            in Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Access to the file — Fine — Guidelines on the method of
                                                                            setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expec-
                                                                                tations)
                          of 20 March 2002
in Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                     (2002/C 156/26)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott                                      (Language of the case: German)
— fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Non-retroactivity
                    — Legitimate expectation)
                           (2002/C 156/25)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           In Case T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, established
                                                                            in Fulda (Germany), represented by H.-J. Hellmann and T. Näg-
                                                                            ele, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls
In Case T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, established in                     and E. Gippini Fournier) — application for, primarily, annul-
Wunstorf (Germany), represented by T. Jestaedt, H.-C. Salger                ment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October
and M. Sura, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-                 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)
(Agents: W. Mölls and É. Gippini Fournier) — application for               (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 Octo-                     imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of
ber 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)                 President, V. Tiili, and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
(OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for reduction of the           Principle Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
fine imposed on the applicant by that decision — the Court of               on 20 March 2002, in which it:
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 2002, in which it:                                                 1.     Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case T-450/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2009 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick COLOUR GROUP) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark Pickwick COLOUR GROUP — Earlier national trade marks PicK OuiC and PICK OUIC Cuadrado, S.A. VALENCIA — Request for proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2009 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick COLOUR GROUP)
   (Case T-450/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark Pickwick COLOUR GROUP - Earlier national trade marks PicK OuiC and PICK OUIC Cuadrado, S.A. VALENCIA - Request for proof of use - Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harwin International LLC (Albany, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Przedborski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cuadrado, SA (Paterna, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2007 (Case R 1245/2006-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cuadrado SA and Harwin International LLC

      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 10 September 2007 (Case R 1245/2006-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Harwin International LLC.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-478/15: Action brought on 21 August 2015 — Romania v Commission

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/33

         Action brought on 21 August 2015 — Romania v Commission
   (Case T-478/15)
   (2015/C 346/39)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Romania (represented by: R.Radu, A. Buzoianu and E. Gane, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision adopted by letter BUDG/B/3/MV D(2015) 2453089 of 11 June 2015 ordering Romania to make available to the EU budget the gross amount of EUR 1 079 513,03 as own resources;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested decision.

                           —

                           EU legislation contains no provision conferring on the Commission the power to require a Member State to pay a sum of money corresponding to a loss of EU own resources which occurred following the remission of customs duties decided by another Member State which was responsible for the assessment and collection of customs duties and their payment to the EU budget as traditional own resources.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the decision are insufficient and inadequate

                           —

                           The reasons stated in the contested decision are not sufficient or adequate, as required under Article 296 TFEU, since, first, the contested decision does not include the legal basis for its adoption and that basis cannot be inferred from the other elements of the letter and, secondly, the Commission did not set out, in the contested decision, the legal reasoning which led it to require Romania to make payment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to exercise its powers correctly

                           —

                           In the event that the Court finds that the EU institution acted within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties, Romania considers that that institution exercised its powers incorrectly and infringed the principle of good administration and Romania’s rights of the defence.

                           —

                           The Commission infringed its obligations in respect of due care and good administration, since it did not carefully examine all the relevant information available to it and did not request additional necessary information before adopting the contested decision. The Commission did not establish a direct causal link between the acts imputed to Romania and the loss of EU own resources. Nor did the Commission justify the sum required from Romania by reference to the amount of customs duty corresponding to the value of the transit operation in question but based it on the value remitted by Germany.

                           —

                           The Commission’s actions were unforeseeable and did not allow Romania to exercise its rights of the defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations

                           —

                           The legal rules on the basis of which the Commission imposed the obligation to make payment were not identified or specified in the decision in question. Nor was their application foreseeable for Romania. Prior to receiving the Commission’s letter, Romania could not foresee or be aware of the obligation to make available to that institution the sum of money requested, corresponding to the loss of EU traditional own resources. By the same token, Romania considers that, by adopting the contested decision and requiring Romania to make payment, five years after the events in question took place and in spite of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the dialogue which took place with the Romanian authorities during that period, the Commission breached Romania’s legitimate expectations that it would not be required to pay the customs duties relating to the transit operations in question.


title: Case C-398/10: Order of the President of the Court of 3 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 January 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-398/10) (1)

   2011/C 89/30
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-610/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/7

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2011 by Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-610/11 P)
   2012/C 80/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09,

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2009 in Case R 6/2008-4, in so far as it grants the application for a declaration of revocation of Community trade mark No 1 301 019 CENTROTHERM,

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing the action of the appellant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2009 on revocation proceedings between centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG and Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH.
   The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The contested decision infringes Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in that it disregards the evidential value of the sworn statement of the manager of the appellant produced before the Cancellation Division. Contrary to the view of the Board of Appeal and the General Court, the sworn statement is indeed in accordance with the case-law of the General Court admissible evidence within the meaning of Article 78(1)(f) of the Regulation No 207/2009.

               2.

               The General Court also misinterpreted Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. In contrast to the finding of the lower instances, according to the unambiguous wording of Article 76(1) of that Regulation as well as its scheme, in revocation proceedings under Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, the principle is that the competent authority has a duty to examine relevant facts of its own motion.

               3.

               The documents presented by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal ought not to have been dismissed as being out of time. This arises from, first, the scheme of Regulation No 207/2009, in particular a comparison between the rules governing use in revocation proceedings and those in opposition and invalidity proceedings due to absolute grounds for refusal, and, second, from the general principles of the allocation of the burden of proof.
               In this context a teleological interpretation restricting the scope of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95 (2) is necessary.

               4.

               Should the Court of Justice reject such a teleological interpretation of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95, that rule would be inapplicable, since it would be contrary to the provisions and the scheme of Regulation No 207/2009 and would infringe the general fundamental principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.


title: Case T-371/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Retractable Technologies v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT) (Community trade mark — Opposition Procedure — Application for figurative Community mark FT — Earlier national word mark RTH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Retractable Technologies v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)
   (Case T-371/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition Procedure - Application for figurative Community mark FT - Earlier national word mark RTH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Retractable Technologies (Little Elms, Texas, USA) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented initially by C. Jenewein, then by G. Schneider and D. Walicka, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Abbott Laboratories (Abbot Park, Illinois, USA)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 July 2009 (Case R 1234/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and Retractable Technologies, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Retractable Technologies to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case T-483/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Damage caused by the Commission in the context of an OLAF investigation and by OLAF — Actions for damages — Action for a declaration that certain measures taken by OLAF were void and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes before the national authorities — Admissibility — Misuse of powers — Processing of personal data — Rights of the defence)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission
   (Case T-483/13) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Damage caused by the Commission in the context of an OLAF investigation and by OLAF - Actions for damages - Action for a declaration that certain measures taken by OLAF were void and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes before the national authorities - Admissibility - Misuse of powers - Processing of personal data - Rights of the defence))
   (2016/C 326/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Georgios, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for compensation for the damage caused by the Commission and by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, secondly, that certain measures taken by OLAF be declared legally void and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes before the national authorities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Athanassios Oikonomopoulos to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-86/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London, by decision of that court of 14 January 1999, in the case of Freemans plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

text:
C 160/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 8 March 1999 by the Commission of                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   Tribunals, London, by decision of that court of 14 January
                                                                        1999, in the case of Freemans plc against Commissioners
                                                                                of Customs and Excise.
                          (Case C-83/99)
                                                                                (Case C-86/99)
                         (1999/C 160/07)                                                         (1999/C 160/08)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 March             Tribunals, London of 14 January 1999, which was received at
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     the Court Registry on 12 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling
represented by Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser,             in the case of Freemans plc against Commissioners of Customs
and by Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, acting as        and Excise, on the following questions:
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      — What, on a proper construction of Article 11A and 11C of
                                                                             the Sixth Directive (1), is the taxable amount in respect of
                                                                             goods supplied by mail order from a catalogue to a
                                                                             customer for the customer’s own use where the supplier in
                                                                             operating self-financed credit terms allows a discount from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  the catalogue price to the customer (‘AOP discount’) with
                                                                             the AOP discount being credited to the customer as and
                                                                             when instalment payments are made to the supplier (or
                                                                             use made of AOP discount in reducing or discharging an
— declare that, by applying a reduced rate to the provision of
                                                                             instalment payment) but where the AOP discount which
     services consisting in making a road infrastructure available
                                                                             has accrued on payments made is available for immediate
     to road users, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             withdrawal or use by the customer even though future
     obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                             instalment payments will be due from that customer?
     (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977,
                                                                        — Is the taxable amount:
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                             1. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
                                                                                customer less the AOP discount on that price, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              2. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
                                                                                customer with a reduction as and when the AOP
                                                                                discount is credited to a customer, or
The provision of services consisting in making a road infra-
structure available to road users is not comparable to the                   3. the full catalogue price of the goods sold to the
‘transport of passengers and their accompanying luggage’                         customer with a reduction as and when the AOP
under point 5 of Annex H to the Sixth Directive. The two                         discount is withdrawn or used by a customer, or
services provided are totally different: in case of transport, the
taxable person undertakes to take responsibility for persons or
goods and move them from one place to another; in the case                   4. some other and, if so what, amount.
of motorways, the concession holder makes available to the
road user a road infrastructure so that he may travel more
rapidly. The Commission cannot see on what principle of non
misinterpretation or neutrality Spain relies in order to place
such a wide construction on the terms of Annex H that its               (1) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
practical effects are totally annulled.                                     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-109/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 March 2017 — Bankia S.A. v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 3 March 2017 — Bankia S.A. v Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino
   (Case C-109/17)
   (2017/C 161/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bankia S.A.

      Defendants: Juan Carlos Marí Merino, Juan Pérez Gavilán and María Concepción Marí Merino

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that currently regulating Spanish mortgage enforcement — Article 695 et seq. in conjunction with Article 552(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure) — which does not provide for the review by the courts, of their own motion or even at the request of one of the parties, of unfair commercial practices, is contrary to Article 11 of that directive because that national legislation hinders or prevents review by the courts of contracts or acts which may contain unfair commercial practices?

               2.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as the Spanish law which does not ensure actual compliance with the code of conduct if the party seeking enforcement of a debt decides not to apply that code (Articles 5 and 6 in conjunction with Article 15 of Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012) is contrary to Article 11 of that directive?

               3.

               Must Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EEC be interpreted as precluding Spanish national legislation which does not allow a consumer, during mortgage enforcement proceedings, to request compliance with a code of conduct, in particular as regards the giving of a property in payment and extinguishment of the debt — Point 3 of the Annex to Royal Decree-Law No 6 of 9 March 2012, Code of Good Practice?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).