title: Case F-38/10: Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Vakalis v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Vakalis v Commission
   (Case F-38/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements determining the pension rights of the applicant on their transfer to the European Union scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Commission decision No 60/2004 of 28 April 2004 is vitiated by illegality;

               —

               annul decision PMO-4/TP D(2009)/434514716;

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 9 July 1998 by NV Koninklijke KNP BT against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-309/94 between NV Koninklijke KNP BT and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-248/98 P)

text:
26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 299/11
Appeal brought on 9 July 1998 by NV Koninklijke KNP                    judgment should be set aside. Moreover, the Court
BT against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the                contravened general principles of law, in particular the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                 principle of equal treatment and the principle of
Case T-309/94 between NV Koninklijke KNP BT and the                    proportionality, Article 190 of the EC Treaty and
         Commission of the European Communities                        Article 15(6) of Council Regulation No 17 by fixing a
                     (Case C-248/98 P)                                 fine on the basis of the Commission's alternative
                                                                       method', that is to say by applying, without specifying
                       (98/C 299/19)                                   more detailed reasons, a basic rate of 7,5 % for the
                                                                       period following 1989 as well,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                Ð infringement of the rights of defence and the
Communities in Case T-309/94 between NV Koninklijke                    requirement to state reasons. The Court of First
KNP BT and the Commission of the European                              Instance infringed general principles of law, in
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                 particular the principle of equal treatment and the
the European Communities on 9 July 1998 by NV                          principle of proportionality, Article 190 of the EC
Koninklijke KNP BT, represented by T. R. Ottervanger,                  Treaty and Article 15 of Regulation No 17 by fixing a
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       fine on a basis which included the internal turnover of
Chambers of Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 56Ð58 rue Charles                    Badische, a German subsidiary of KNP,
Martel.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Ð contrary to Community law (principle of equal
                                                                       treatment, principle of proportionality, Article 190 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty and, above all, Article 15 of Regulation
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            No 17) the Court of First Instance, when itself fixing
    14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94 (1),                                  the fine, wrongly took mid-1986 as the date on which
                                                                       the infringement commenced as regards Badische as
                                                                       well.
2. annul the Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 (IV/
    33.833) and the fine imposed on the applicant, or
                                                                   (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 30.
    reduce the fine, in accordance with the application
    submitted on 7 October 1994 or, alternatively, refer
    the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
    ruling on the question whether that decision should (in
    part) be declared void,
3. order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
    before the Court of First Instance and the Court of            Circondariale di Firenze, by order of that court of 20 June
    Justice.                                                       1998, in criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carra,
                                                                            Alessandra Colombo and Barbara Gianassi
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       (Case C-258/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/20)
Ð The highly defective statement of reasons for the
    decision should have been grounds for the Court of
    First Instance to annul it. In particular, the decision
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    gives no indication whatsoever of the method used by
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    the Commission used to determine a fine that is
                                                                   Circondariale di Firenze (Magistrate's Court, District of
    related to the turnover of the various undertakings for
                                                                   Florence) of 20 June 1998, which was received at the
    which KNP is held responsible and to the period
                                                                   Court Registry on 15 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    during which and the extent to which each of them
                                                                   in criminal proceedings against Giovanni Carra,
    was involved in an infringement. By giving no, or
                                                                   Alessandra Colombo and Barbara Gianassi on the
    inadequate, reasons why the Court did not annul the
                                                                   following questions:
    decision, the Court infringed Article 190 of the EC
    Treaty,
                                                                   (a) Whether Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, as
Ð in its judgment the Court should have dealt with                       interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice of
    KNP's plea that the Commission wrongly imposed a                     the European Communities of 11 December 1997 (1),
    fine for the period from 1989, or (alternatively) that as            have direct effect in the sense that they require
    involvement was marginal, the Commission should                      Member States not to impose any general and
    have imposed a much reduced fine. By wholly failing                  absolute prohibition of acting as an employment
    to dealing with those particular circumstances, the                  agency and consequently require the national court to
    Court infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty and the                 treat any activity as a private intermediary for the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Case C-215/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale, Bologna): Barbara Bellone v. Yokohama SpA (Directive 86/653/EEC - Independent commercial agents - National rules providing that commercial agency contracts concluded by persons not entered on the register of agents are void)

text:
C 184/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
     costs.                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Annulment of the
                                                                     procedure under way Ð Competition notice Ð Post
                                                                        reserved to nationals of new Member States Ð Appeal)
                                                                                (98/C 184/05)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                       of 30 April 1998                                        published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-215/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale, Bologna): Barbara Bellone v. Yokohama                 In Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                            SpA (1)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                     Dalheim, Luxembourg, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of
(Directive 86/653/EEC Ð Independent commercial agents                the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Ð National rules providing that commercial agency                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180, Route de
contracts concluded by persons not entered on the register           Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of
                      of agents are void)                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96
                        (98/C 184/04)                                Rasmussen v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-187 seeking
                                                                     to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                     proceedings being Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Alberto
                                                                     Dal Ferro) Ð the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
                                                                     General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 2 April
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-215/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale, Bologna (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Barbara Bellone and Yokohama SpA Ð on                  (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial
agents (OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17) Ð the Court (First
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             by order of that Court of 5 February 1998, in the case of
a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                  Preston and others against Wolverhampton Healthcare
                                                                     NHS Trust and others, and Fletcher and others against
                                                                                Midland Bank plc
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on                                          (Case C-78/98)
the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                (98/C 184/06)
to self-employed commercial agents precludes a national
rule which makes the validity of an agency contract
conditional upon the commercial agent being entered in               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the appropriate register.                                            European Communities by an order of the House of
                                                                     Lords, of 5 February 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             Court Registry on 23 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the case of Preston and others against
                                                                     Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others, and
                                                                     Fletcher and others against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                     following questions:


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-256/05: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Telekom-Control-Kommission in Telekom Austria AG, formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG (Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Reference to the Court — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Market for transit services)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/7

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-256/05: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Telekom-Control-Kommission in Telekom Austria AG, formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG (1)

   (Questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction of the Court - Reference to the Court - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Common regulatory framework - Market for transit services)
   (2006/C 10/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-256/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Telekom-Control-Kommission (Austria), made by decision of 13 June 2005, received at the Court on 17 June 2005, in the proceedings concerning Telekom Austria AG, formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 6 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Telekom-Control-Kommission in its decision of 13 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 20.08.2005


title: Case F-98/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission (Officials — Staff cases — Promotion — 2004 promotion exercise — Allocation of priority points — Application ratione temporis of provisions of the new staff regulations)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Di Bucci v Commission
   (Case F-98/05) (1)

   (Officials - Staff cases - Promotion - 2004 promotion exercise - Allocation of priority points - Application ratione temporis of provisions of the new staff regulations)
   (2008/C 116/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, agents, and D. Slater, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decisions awarding promotion points to the applicant in respect of the 2004 promotion exercise and, second, annulment of the merit list of Grade A*11 officials promoted to Grade A*12 in the 2004 promotion exercise
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision fixing the total of Mr Di Bucci's promotion points in the 2004 promotion exercise and the decision refusing him promotion in that exercise.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 24 (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under T-381/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15 December 2005).


title: Case C-175/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v AXA UK PLC (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption — Article 13B(d)(3) — Transactions concerning payments or transfers — Debt collection and factoring — Payment plans for dental care — Service of collecting and processing payments for the account of the service supplier’s clients)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom)) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v AXA UK PLC
   (Case C-175/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments or transfers - Debt collection and factoring - Payment plans for dental care - Service of collecting and processing payments for the account of the service supplier’s clients)
   2010/C 346/21
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Respondent: AXA UK PLC

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions — Scope — Meaning of ‘service that has the effect of transferring funds and entail[ing] changes in the legal and financial situation’ — Collection, processing and onward payment services for traders’ credits from customers — Payment plans for dental care

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT provided for by that provision does not cover a supply of services which consist, in essence, in requesting a third party’s bank to transfer to the service supplier’s account, via the direct debit system, a sum due from that party to the service supplier’s client, in sending to the client a statement of the sums received, in making contact with the third parties from whom the service supplier has not received payment and, finally, in giving instructions to the service supplier’s bank to transfer the payments received, less the service supplier’s remuneration, to the client’s bank account.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.


title: Case T-254/15: Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Casale Fresco — Earlier EU word mark FREZCO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco)
   (Case T-254/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Casale Fresco - Earlier EU word mark FREZCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2015 (Case R 1138/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Casale Fresco as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-69/05: Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/15

         Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-69/05)
   (2005/C 106/29)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Florence Clotuche-Duvieusart and Agnieszka Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all existing State aid schemes during 2000 and 2001 in the agricultural sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) (now Article 88 of the EC Treaty), as implemented by the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (2000/C/28/02);

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 21(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 of the EC Treaty) provides that ‘Member States shall submit to the Commission annual reports on all existing aid schemes with regard to which no specific reporting obligations have been imposed in a conditional decision’. The submission of those reports in the agricultural sector is governed by the ‘Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector’ (2000/C/28/02), which state that ‘a single report should be presented to the Commission, for the first time before 1 July 2001, and thereafter no later than 30 June each year, covering all aid schemes for the agricultural sector in the Member State concerned’. The binding nature of guidelines in the field of State aid which have been accepted as appropriate measures by a Member State has been confirmed by the case-law of the Court of Justice. The guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector were accepted by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, since it never stated in writing that it contested the appropriate measures in those guidelines. Consequently, by failing to communicate the reports in question for the years 2000 and 2001, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations.

      (1)  OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1.


title: Case C-282/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/38/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-282/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/38/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 82/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Roels and W. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), 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 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-173/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2006 — Carius v Commission (Officials — Career Development Report — 2001/2002 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Plea of illegality — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2006 — Carius v Commission
   (Case T-173/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career Development Report - 2001/2002 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Plea of illegality - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2006/C 310/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Carius (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of 21 May 2003 drawing up the definitive version of the applicant's Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and, so far as necessary, of the decision of 23 December 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Case C-391/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 22 August 2012 — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 22 August 2012 — RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH
   (Case C-391/12)
   2012/C 343/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: RLvS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

      Respondent on a point of law: Stuttgarter Wochenblatt GmbH

      Question referred

   Do Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 3(5), of the Directive (1) preclude the application of a national provision (in this case, Paragraph 10 of the Landespressegesetz Baden-Württemberg (Law governing the Press of the Land of Baden-Württemberg)) which is intended not only to protect consumers against misleading practices but also to protect the independence of the press and which, in contrast to Article 7(2) and point 11 of Annex I to the Directive, prohibits any publication for remuneration, irrespective of the purpose thereby pursued, if that publication is not identified by the use of the term ‘advertisement’, unless it is already evident from the arrangement and layout of the publication that it is an advertisement?

      (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 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


C 348/22              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                8.12.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-249/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-443/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/39)                                                     (2001/C 348/42)
By order of 2 August 2001 the President of the Court of Justice     By order of 13 September 2001 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
the register of Case C-249/00: Commission of the European           from the register of Case C-443/00: Commission of the
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-272/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-132/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/40)                                                     (2001/C 348/43)
By order of 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of          By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-272/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-132/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                           European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-354/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-133/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 348/41)                                                     (2001/C 348/44)
By order of 4 October 2001 the President of the Court of            By order of 8 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-354/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-133/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                            European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.


title: Case T- 164/05: Action brought on on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest against Council of the European Union

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest against Council of the European Union
   (Case T- 164/05)
   (2005/C 171/46)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest, residing in Rhode-St-Genèse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision to appoint him as an official of the European Communities in that it fixes his grade on recruitment at A*6, pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was a candidate in internal competition CONSEIL/A/273 held to fill a post as doctor in grade A6 or A7. The applicant was successful in the competition and was appointed in grade A*6. The applicant contests that decision, claiming that he should have been appointed in grade A*8, A*9 or A*10, which, under the new system, correspond to the former grades referred to in the notification of competition.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the Council fixed his grade on recruitment without having regard to the notification of vacancy and, accordingly, breached Articles 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and also the principle of legitimate expectations. In that context, the applicant also claims that article 12 of Article XIII to the Staff Regulations, which the Council applied when fixing his grade on recruitment, unlawfully alters the framework of legality of the recruitment procedure.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-304/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/69)
   By order of 26 April 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-304/03: Commission of the European Communities v PROSECOM – Protecção, Segurança e Comunicações, L da.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 1999 in Case C-420/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie): Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA v Bodetex BVBA (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1) — Commercial agency agreement — Action founded on separate obligations arising from the same contract and regarded as equal in rank — Jurisdiction of the court seised to hear the whole action)

text:
C 6/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.1.2000
European Communities, employed in the European Institute                   Divisione Sintetici SpA and Bodetex BVBA on the interpret-
for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe (Germany), represented                 ation of Articles 2 and 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention
by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and A. Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,           of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, Rue de Cessange — appeal against                Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
Communities (Third Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case                        — amended text — p. 77) — the Court composed of:
T-81/96 Apostolidis and Others v Commission [1997] ECR-                    G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puisso-
SC I-A-207 and II-607, seeking to have that judgment set                   chet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moit-
aside, the other party to the proceedings being Commission of              inho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall),             and L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger,
supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents:                    Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
M. Bishop and D. Canga Fano) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                      On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of
R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                  27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                           Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
1. Dismisses the appeal in its entirety;                                   Northern Ireland, the same court does not have jurisdiction to hear
                                                                           the whole of an action founded on two obligations of equal rank
2. Orders the applicants, the Commission of the European Com-              arising from the same contract when, according to the conflict rules
    munities and the Council of the European Union to bear their           of the State where that court is situated, one of those obligations is to
    own costs.                                                             be performed in that State and the other in another Contracting
                                                                           State.
(1) OJ No C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 5 October 1999
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-420/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 5 October 1999
the Hof van Cassatie): Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA
                        v Bodetex BVBA (1)
                                                                           in Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Articles 2 and
5(1) — Commercial agency agreement — Action founded on
                                                                           (Appeal — Annulment of a decision of the Commission to
separate obligations arising from the same contract and
                                                                                refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance)
regarded as equal in rank — Jurisdiction of the court seised
                     to hear the whole action)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/12)
                           (2000/C 6/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-433/97 P: IPK-München GmbH, established in
                                                                           Munich (Germany), represented by H.-J. Priess, of the Brussels
In Case C-420/97: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, B-1000 Brussels — appeal against
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of            the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                Communities (First Chamber) of 15 October 1997 in Case
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                   T-331/94 IPK v Commission [1997] ECR 11-1665, seeking to
by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in              have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between Leathertex               being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Case C-155/08 and C-157/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X (C-155/08), E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Wealth tax — Income tax — Savings deposited in a Member State other than the Member State of residence — No declaration — Recovery period — Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance of the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation — Banking secrecy)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X (C-155/08), E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-155/08 and C-157/08) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Wealth tax - Income tax - Savings deposited in a Member State other than the Member State of residence - No declaration - Recovery period - Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance of the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation - Banking secrecy)
   2009/C 180/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X (C-155/08), E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot (C-157/08)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC — Taxation by a Member State of income (from capital) of a national resident held in an account in an establishment situated in another Member State — Income not declared in the Member State of residence — Rules of national law providing for a 12-year recovery period in respect of income from another Member State and a 5-year recovery period in respect of income from national sources — Proportional fine — Possible relevance of the fact that banking secrecy applies in the Member State in which the income originated.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding the application by a Member State, where savings balances and income from those balances are concealed from the tax authorities of that Member State and the latter have no evidence of their existence which would enable an investigation to be initiated, of a longer recovery period when the balances are held in another Member State than when they are held in the first Member State. The fact that that other Member State applies banking secrecy is not relevant in that regard.

               2.

               Articles 49 EC and 56 EC must be interpreted as not precluding, when a Member State applies a longer recovery period in the case of assets held in another Member State than in the case of assets held in the first Member State and such foreign assets and the income therefrom were concealed from the first Member State’s tax authorities which had no evidence of their existence enabling an investigation to be initiated, the fine imposed for concealment of the foreign assets and income from being calculated as a proportion of the amount to be recovered and over that longer period.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008


title: Case F-47/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — JJ (*) v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2012 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Interinstitutional transfer in the course of the promotion procedure preceding that during which a promotion decision would have taken effect — Institution which is competent to take a decision on promotion of the transferred official)

text:
                  8.3.2014

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 71/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 —  JJ (*1) v Council
         (Case F-47/13) (1)

         (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2012 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Interinstitutional transfer in the course of the promotion procedure preceding that during which a promotion decision would have taken effect - Institution which is competent to take a decision on promotion of the transferred official)
         (2014/C 71/72)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: JJ (*1) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

            Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

            Re:

         Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials in function group AD proposed for promotion in 2012.

            Operative part of the order

                     1.

                     The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

                     2.

                      JJ (*1) shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.


title: Case C-148/07: Order of the President of the Court of 6 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-148/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/68)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-92/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 112/12             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
    The additional costs of transport and related infrastruc-                Furthermore, the defendant infringed the principle of
    ture, energy, health, education, industry and services                   proportionality inasmuch as, in view of the elementary
    resulting from the remoteness and insularity of the                      finding that the situation was absolutely identical with
    Autonomous Region of the Azores also affect all under-                   regard to the abovementioned structural costs for under-
    takings in the financial sector. Thus, the elevated cost of              takings in the region which operate in the financial sector,
    transporting goods to and from mainland Portugal and                     it should have similarly considered compatible with
    between the islands is also reflected in that type of                    the common market the tax reductions applicable to
    activity, since much of the equipment which banking and                  undertakings which operate in the financial sector, just as
    insurance activities require is not available on the local               it did in respect of undertakings not operating in the
    market and must be imported and, in certain cases,                       financial sector and in the same terms.
    transported between various islands. Furthermore, in
    view of the dearth of specialists and qualified staff in the
    Azores and the problems facing the educational system
    there, certain specialised services which banks need are
    not available in the region. They therefore have to
    be provided by specialists from continental Portugal
    (maintenance of equipment, auditing, consulting, trainers
    for courses, etc.) In such cases, it is clear that anyone
    employing such specialists ends up bearing air transport,          Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
    accommodation and subsistence costs. Likewise, short-              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
    comings in the education system and the lack of special-                                        Republic
    ists and qualified staff in the region results in a lack of
    specific training being offered, the alternative being to
    send staff to continental Portugal. However, undertakings                                    (Case C-92/03)
    operating outside the financial sector are, in the main,
    small- and medium-sized enterprises operating in or for
                                                                                (2003/C 112/21)
    the local market, with establishments or installations on
    only one island. Consequently, the additional costs arising
    from ‘the effect of the special circumstances of the
    Azores’ affect them much less than banking or insurance
    institutions which have offices spread out across various          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
    islands. Moreover, the region’s economic underdevelop-             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    ment and the lower income and purchasing power of its              28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
    population penalise, to a greater extent, that kind of             Communities, represented by A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis,
    activity.                                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary
                                                                             to attribute priority to the treatment of waste oils by
                                                                             regeneration, irrespective of whether technical, economic
    By failing to take account of studies previously submitted               or administrative constraints make it possible, the Portu-
    in State aid cases relating to the Autonomous Region of                  guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    Madeira and the correlation with all the additional costs                Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC ( 1) of
    quantified and set out and which arise directly from the                 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (as amended
    structural deficiencies of the Autonomous Region of the                  by Directive 87/101/EEC), as amended by Directive 87/
    Azores so far as concern also those undertakings which                   101/EEC (2) of 22 December 1986;
    operate in the financial sector, the defendant manifestly
    infringed the principle of sound administration.                   2.    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       None of the legislative or regulatory provisions referred to by
    By the same token, the contested decision further                  the Portuguese authorities as having been adopted in order to
    infringes the principle of equality, since it flagrantly           implement Directive 75/439/EEC attributes priority to the
    discriminates against undertakings operating in the finan-         treatment of waste oils by regeneration. The Portuguese
    cial sector, which are affected just as much as or more            authorities themselves confirm that, 12 years after the date set
    than others by the ‘the effect of the special circumstances        by Directive 87/101/EEC, they have still not adopted the
    of the Azores’.                                                    necessary measures to attribute such priority.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 112/13
The Commission takes the view that, contrary to the arguments             (Regional Court, Hagen) of 11 February 2003, received at the
put forward by the Portuguese authorities, Council Regulation             Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(EEC) No 259/93 (3) enables the competent authorities to ban              proceedings relating to the commercial register concerning
the exportation of waste oils intended for recovery operations,           Betriebsgesellschaft Radio Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis mbh & Co. KG;
in particular energy recovery (or burning for energy recovery).           Person concerned: Mr Hans-Jürgen Weske on the following
                                                                          questions:
So far as concerns economic constraints which, in the view of
the Portuguese Government, do not make it possible to deal                1.    Was the European Community entitled to take
with waste oil in such a way as to attribute priority to                        Article 54(1), in conjunction with Article 54(3)(g), of the
regeneration of such waste, there is a contradiction between                    EC Treaty (old version) as a basis when it adopted Council
the quantities of waste oil which the Portuguese authorities                    Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
claim to be available annually and those which the economic                     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive
operators claim to be necessary to guarantee the viability of a                 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
waste oil regeneration plant in Portugal. In any event, even if                 scope of those Directives, even though Directive 90/605/
the Portuguese authorities were able to prove that the mini-                    EEC also grants inspection rights to third parties which
mum limit to make the setting-up of a regeneration plant                        do not require protection?
economically viable is, normally, for between 60 000 and
80 000 tonnes of waste oil to be available annually, it would
have to be considered that deficiencies in monitoring the use
to which waste oil is put and in the collection of such oil               2.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC, in conjunction with Article 47
(according to the Portuguese authorities, collection in 1999                    of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the fundamen-
was in the order of 60 %) are decisive contributing factors for                 tal Community right of freedom to exercise a trade or
the conditions not being met for attributing priority to                        profession in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften (limited
treatment by regeneration and, in particular, for setting up in                 partnerships) whose personally liable partner is a private
Portugal at least one regeneration plant.                                       limited company are obliged to publish their annual
                                                                                accounts and annual report, in particular without any
                                                                                restriction being imposed on the group of persons entitled
Finally, so far as concerns the alleged difficulty in finding                   to inspect those documents?
private investors willing to bear the high level of investment
necessary for the construction of regeneration units, the
Portuguese authorities could have adopted a number of                     3.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC ( 1), in conjunction with
incentive measures including a subsidy for regeneration in                      Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the
compliance with Article 14 of Directive 75/439/EEC, as                          fundamental Community rights of freedom of the press
amended by Directive 87/101/EEC.                                                and radio in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften whose
                                                                                personally liable partner is a private limited company and
                                                                                which are engaged in the press and publishing sector or
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23.                                                      the radio broadcasting sector are obliged to publish their
( 2) OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43.                                                       annual accounts and annual report, in particular without
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the               any restriction being imposed on the group of persons
     supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and             entitled to inspect those documents?
     out of the European Community, OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                          4.    Is Directive 90/605/EEC compatible with the general
                                                                                principle of equality in so far as it places at a disadvantage
                                                                                those Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable
                                                                                partner is a private limited company as compared with
                                                                                Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally liable partner
                                                                                is a natural person, even though creditors of a GmbH &
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                           Co. KG [a limited partnership in which the unlimited
Hagen by order of that Court of 11 February 2003 in                             partner is a private limited company] are better protected
proceedings relating to the commercial register concern-                        by the duty of disclosure imposed on private limited
ing Betriebsgesellschaft Radio Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis mbh &                          companies than are creditors of a Kommanditgesellschaft
      Co. KG; Person concerned: Mr Hans-Jürgen Weske                            whose personally liable partner, as a natural person, is
                                                                                not under any duties of disclosure?
                          (Case C-103/03)
                          (2003/C 112/22)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Hagen


title: Case C-107/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/13

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Italy) — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo
   (Case C-107/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 151/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta

      Defendant: Massimiliano Rizzo

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit — Protection afforded to persons obtaining authorisations and permits by means of award procedures that unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the case before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse races, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2012.


title: Case C-588/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 December 2012 — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 December 2012 — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers
   (Case C-588/12)
   2013/C 79/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lyreco Belgium NV

      Defendant: Sophie Rogiers

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 2, paragraph 4, of the framework agreement concluded on 14 December 1995 by the general cross-industry organisations, UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, on parental leave, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, preclude the protective award which is payable to the worker who was bound to his employer by a full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, and whose employment contract is terminated unilaterally by that employer without urgent cause or sufficient ground during a period of reduction of working hours, on the grounds of the taking of parental leave, by 20 % or 50 %, from being calculated with reference to the salary payable during that period of reduction, where the same worker would be entitled to a protective award calculated by reference to the full-time salary if he had reduced his working hours by 100 %[?]

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.


title: Case C-410/12 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2012 by medi GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09 medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

      Appeal brought on 7 September 2012 by medi GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09 medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (Case C-410/12 P)
      (2012/C 331/26)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside in full the judgment of the General Court under appeal (Case T-470/09; judgment of 12 July 2012);

                  —

                  grant in full the form of order sought at first instance in accordance with the application submitted to the General Court of the European Union and the amendments in the oral hearing on 2 May 2012 as recorded in the minutes.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by medi GmbH & Co. KG against the decision of 1 October 2009 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark.
      The appellant relies in essence on the following ground of appeal.
      The General Court is said to have erred in law in its application of Article 7(1)(b) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) in that it proceeded on the assumption that the word sign ‘medi’ does not have the requisite minimum degree of distinctiveness for a Community trade mark. That is incorrect, as that word sign is not a conventional abbreviation of the word ‘medicine’ for the relevant average English-speaking consumer.

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


title: Case T-739/16: Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/37

         Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)
   (Case T-739/16)
   (2016/C 462/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp. j. (Koszalin, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Douglas Holding GmbH & Co.KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘COSIMO’ — Application for registration No 12 130 324

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2016 in Case R 2364/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               dismiss the appeal brought by the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-131/06 P: Appeal brought on  27 February 2006  by Castellblanch, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on  8 December 2005  in Case T-29/04: Castellblanch, SA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Champagne Louis Roederer, SA

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/10

         Appeal brought on 27 February 2006 by Castellblanch, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 8 December 2005 in Case T-29/04: Castellblanch, SA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Champagne Louis Roederer, SA
   (Case C-131/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Castellblanch, SA (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Champagne Louis Roederer, SA
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 in case T-29/04 Castellblanch, SA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), insofar that it found that the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not infringe Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark in adopting its decision of 17 November 2003 (Case R0037/2002-2) and to give final judgment in the matter and therefore:

               —

               to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2003 (Case R0037/2000-2) insofar as it dismissed the appeal of Castellblanch SA and upheld the opposition No B 15703 for all the contested goods and rejected the trade mark application No 55962 for all the contested goods;

               —

               order the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The judgment of the Court of First Instance infringes the Community Law insofar as the Court of First Instance took into account two new documents that were produced for the first time before it, which the Court of First Instance should have declared inadmissible.
   The Appellant does not appeal the contested judgment with regard to its first plea in law in its application for annulment before the Court of First Instance, insofar as the Court found that the proprietor of the earlier trade mark had given sufficient proof of the use of the earlier trade mark in the territory concerned. However, the Appellant criticises the fact that the Court did not take into consideration the nature of the use of the earlier trade mark when comparing the signs, and, in particular, did not take into consideration the impact of that use on the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark.
   As the comparison between the goods and the likelihood of confusion, the Court of First Instance's judgment violates several provisions of Community law with respect to the Appellant's argument that proof of use of the earlier trade mark had only been given for ‘Champagne’ and not for all the goods for which the earlier trade mark is registered. Furthermore, where the Court of First Instance compares ‘Champagne’ and ‘Cava’, in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Appellant is of the opinion that the judgment contains contradictory reasoning because the Court of First Instance judged, on the one hand, that consumers are generally particularly interested in the origin of the wines and, on the other hand, that ‘Champagne’ and ‘Cava’ are similar. As a consequence, the Court of First Instance wrongly assessed the likelihood of confusion in the present case.
   In its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Court of First Instance wrongly failed to consider the impact of the manner in which the prior trademark has been used; nor did it correctly assess the respective weights of the evocative and non-evocative parts of the Appellant's trade mark in its assessment of the similarity between the conflicting trade marks. As a consequence, the Court of First Instance wrongly assessed te likelihood of confusion in the present case.

      (1)  OJ L 011, P. 1-36


title: Case T-521/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho et Wang Yu (A ASTER)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/20

         Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Alpinestars Research v OHIM — Tung Cho et Wang Yu (A ASTER)
   (Case T-521/13)
   2013/C 352/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alpinestars Research Srl (Coste di Maser, Italy) (represented by: G. Dragotti and R. Valenti, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kean Tung Cho (Taichung City, Taiwan); and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu (Wuci Township, Taiwan)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 July 2013 given in Case R 2309/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal elements ‘A ASTER’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 084 395

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘A-STARS’ for goods in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 6 181 002

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-2/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/21

         Action brought on 7 January 2013 — CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission
   (Case T-2/13)
   2013/C 79/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action brought by CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange admissible;

               —

               rule that the decision is annulled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

   In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law alleging, primarily, infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the contested decision characterises as State aid the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom introduced by Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996. The applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU:

                           —

                           by holding that the 1996 Law could be characterised as an economic advantage;

                           —

                           by concluding that the reform was selective in nature, even though the absence of any external comparison prevents any selectivity;

                           —

                           by holding that the 1996 Law is liable to distort competition for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, even though the payment of an exceptional contribution by France Télécom would have legitimately neutralised the disabling effects of the 1990 Law for France Télécom.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors of law and of assessment by making the compatibility of the 1996 Law with the internal market subject to the conditions set out in Article 2 of the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of several fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of equality of arms, the right of interested parties to be heard, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to be heard within a reasonable time period.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, the contested decision not being intended to recover State aid incompatible with the internal market, but to impose in the future on France Télécom supplementary burdens which would have the effect of impeding its development on the telecommunications markets.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 August 2012 in Case E-12/11 — Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)

text:
               31.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 17 August 2012
   in Case E-12/11
   Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)
   2013/C 29/05
   In Case E-12/11, Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 concerning sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the Municipality of Asker, Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 17 August 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-186/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/8

         Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-186/05)
   (2005/C 171/14)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by obstructing the private import of alcoholic beverages by independent agents or commercial transporters, which cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30 EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has infringed Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities;

               2.

               order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that Article 28 EC does not permit Sweden, generally, to obstruct the private import of alcoholic drinks by independent agents or commercial carriers. The Commission further takes the view that the obstacle to trade cannot be justified under Article 30 EC on the ground of protection of public health with reference to the following underlying reasons: (1) to limit private profits, (2) to limit access to alcoholic drinks or (3) the need to maintain age checks; in each case the measure is neither necessary nor proportional to the aim stated. The fact that the retail trade monopoly alone has the right to deal with private imports at the client's request is regarded by the Commission as an obstacle to trade, which should be assessed in the light of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. The Swedish Government, for its part, considers that the prohibition on private import is a part of the retail trade monopoly's existence and operating method and should be assessed in accordance with Article 31 EC and that as such it cannot be regarded as discriminatory or likely to distort competition between Member States and, in the alternative, that it is appropriate and proportional.


title: Case F-45/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/51

         Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case F-45/09)
   2009/C 153/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s career development report for 2007.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-209/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Corncrake — Special protection area in the Lauteracher Ried national nature reserve — Exclusion of the Soren and Gleggen-Köblern sites — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Procedure for a construction plan or project — Procedure for determining the road line of a dual carriageway — Procedure for environmental impact study — Procedural breaches relating to the project for the construction of the federal S 18 dual carriageway in Austria — Temporal application of Directive 92/43)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-209/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Corncrake - Special protection area in the Lauteracher Ried national nature reserve - Exclusion of the Soren and Gleggen-Köblern sites - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Procedure for a construction plan or project - Procedure for determining the road line of a dual carriageway - Procedure for environmental impact study - Procedural breaches relating to the project for the construction of the federal S 18 dual carriageway in Austria - Temporal application of Directive 92/43)
   (2006/C 131/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, J. Müller and K. Humer, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Article 6(4) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Drawing of the boundaries of the special protection area ‘Lauteracher Ried’ on the basis of inaccurate scientific criteria, wrongly excluding the two sites ‘Soren’ and ‘Gleggen-Köblern’, which are important for the protection of the corncrake (Crex crex) and other migratory birds nesting in the meadows — Authorisation of a road-construction project likely to affect that area, without complying with the obligations under Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to include in the special protection area at the Lauteracher Ried national nature reserve the Soren and Gleggen-Köblern sites which, according to scientific criteria, are, together with that special protection area, among the most suitable territories in number and size for the purposes of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.04.2004.


title: Case C-492/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele v Elilombarda Srl, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda di Milano (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — Persons to whom review procedures must be available — Tender by a consortium — Right of each member of a consortium to bring an action individually)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/20

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele v Elilombarda Srl, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda di Milano
   (Case C-492/06) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Persons to whom review procedures must be available - Tender by a consortium - Right of each member of a consortium to bring an action individually)
   (2007/C 297/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele

      Defendants: Elilombarda Srl, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda di Milano
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — National case-law recognising that an individual member of a tendering consortium has the right to bring an action against the decision awarding the contract
   Operative part of the order
   Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 is to be interpreted as not precluding the possibility, under national law, for an individual member of a consortium without legal personality which has participated as such in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract to bring an action against the decision awarding that contract.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case C-474/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Smanor SA against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2011 in Case T-185/11 Smanor SA v European Commission, European Ombudsman

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/6

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Smanor SA against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2011 in Case T-185/11 Smanor SA v European Commission, European Ombudsman
   (Case C-474/11 P)
   2012/C 227/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Smanor SA (represented by: J.-P. Ekeu, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Ombudsman
   By order of 1 March 2012, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Smanor to bear its own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-30/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 1999/45/EC and 2001/60/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-30/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 1999/45/EC and 2001/60/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 205/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-30/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C.F. Durand and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, and Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.