title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials — 2003 Promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Action for annulment — Prior administrative complaint — Identity of subject-matter and legal basis — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 May 2005
   in Case T-377/04 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - 2003 Promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Action for annulment - Prior administrative complaint - Identity of subject-matter and legal basis - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 205/41)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-377/04: Bart Nijs, an official of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities not to promote the applicant to grade LA5 in the 2003 promotion exercise — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of 9 January 2004 in the case of Agrarproduktion Staebelow GmbH against Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of 9 January 2004 in the case of Agrarproduktion Staebelow GmbH against Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan
   (Case C-504/04)
   (2005/C 57/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) of 9 January 2004 received at the Court Registry on 8 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Agrarproduktion Staebelow GmbH against Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan on the following question:
   Is Article 13(1)(c) in conjunction with Annex VII(2)(a) and the third indent of Annex VII(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 (1) laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies as amended by Article 3(1) of and Annex II to Regulation (EC) no 1326/2001 (2) invalid because the measure infringes the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  OJ L 147, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 177, p. 60.


title: Case T-332/10: Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Viaguara v OHIM — Pfizer (VIAGUARA)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

         Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Viaguara v OHIM — Pfizer (VIAGUARA)
   (Case T-332/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Viaguara S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pfizer Inc.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in Case R 964/2009-1;

               —

               order the defendant and Pfizer Inc. to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Viaguara.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — application No 4630562.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pfizer Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community work mark ‘VIAGRA’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and trade mark application rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on account of an incorrect methodology for assessment of the connection between the marks and flawed findings in relation to the risk of exploitation of the repute and image of the trade mark cited in opposition.

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


title: Case C-314/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/39

         Action brought on 26 June 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-314/15)
   (2015/C 294/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that in not having assured the secondary treatment or equivalent of urban waste water from 15 agglomerations having a population equivalent between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1).

               —

               that the French Republic should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action the Commission complains that France has failed to implement correctly, in 15 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.
   Pursuant to Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, agglomerations where the population equivalent (p.e.) is between 10  000 and 15  000 for all discharges outside sensitive areas, being a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 for all discharges in fresh water and estuaries, must be equipped with collecting systems and waste water undergo a secondary treatment or the equivalent by 31 December 2005 at the latest.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case T-464/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2011 — Commission v New Acoustic Music and Hildibrandsdottir (Arbitration clause — Contract for financial assistance concluded under the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme — Implementation of the action entitled ‘European Music Roadwork’ — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of part of the amounts advanced — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Procedure by default — Legal aid)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2011 — Commission v New Acoustic Music and Hildibrandsdottir
   (Case T-464/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract for financial assistance concluded under the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme - Implementation of the action entitled ‘European Music Roadwork’ - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of part of the amounts advanced - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Procedure by default - Legal aid)
   2011/C 186/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by C. Erkelens, lawyer)

      Defendants: New Acoustic Music Association (Orpington, United Kingdom); and Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir (Orpington, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Application by the Commission under an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, seeking an order that New Acoustic Music Association and Ms Hildibrandsdottir repay to it part of the amount of the advances paid, together with default interest, in performance of Contract No 2003-1895/001-001, to carry out the action entitled ‘CLT2003/A1/GB-317 — European Music Roadwork’, as part of the ‘Culture 2000’ Framework Programme established by Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is brought against New Acoustic Music Association;

               2.

               Orders Ms Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdottir, as a member of the New Acoustic Music Association partnership, to repay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 31 136,23, together with interest at the rate of 7,70% per annum as of 14 January 2008 until the debt is fully discharged;

               3.

               Orders Ms Hildibrandsdottir to pay the costs.

               4.

               Ms Hildibrandsdottir’s application for legal aid is rejected.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional: Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol (Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement — Article 23(1) — Direct effect — Conditions relating to employment — Principle of non-discrimination — Football — Limit on the number of professional players having the nationality of non-member countries who may appear on a team in a national competition)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 April 2005
   in Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional: Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol (1)

   (Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement - Article 23(1) - Direct effect - Conditions relating to employment - Principle of non-discrimination - Football - Limit on the number of professional players having the nationality of non-member countries who may appear on a team in a national competition)
   (2005/C 132/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-265/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by decision of 9 May 2003, received at the Court on 17 June 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Igor Simutenkov and Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 23(1) of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, signed in Corfu on 24 June 1994 and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision 97/800/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Council and Commission Decision of 30 October 1997, must be construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman of Russian nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation of that State which provides that clubs may field in competitions organised at national level only a limited number of players from countries which are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Case T-400/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — ECKA Granulate and non ferrum Metallpulver v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/29

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — ECKA Granulate and non ferrum Metallpulver v Commission
   (Case T-400/09)
   2009/C 297/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: ECKA Granulate GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) and non ferrum Metallpulver GmbH & Co. KG (St Georgen bei Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: H. Janssen and M. Franz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce appropriately the fine imposed on the applicants by the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants contest Commission Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industry. The contested decision imposed a fine on the applicants and on other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in the calcium carbide and magnesium sector in the EEA, except in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which consisted in market sharing, agreements on quotas, customer allocations, price fixing and exchange of sensitive information relating to prices, customers and sales volumes.
   In support of their action, the applicants submit the following pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty by Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) since the Commission has an almost unfettered discretion in relation to setting the fine;

               —

               unlawful setting of the fine since the Guidelines on setting fines (2) grant the Commission an almost unfettered discretion in relation to setting the amount of the fine;

               —

               disproportionality of the amount of the fine since the defendant failed to take account of the applicants’ effective cooperation;

               —

               disproportionality of the amount of the fine since the defendant failed to take account of the fact that the applicants have no experience of infringements of the law relating to cartels;

               —

               disproportionality of the amount of the fine since the defendant failed to take into account as a mitigating circumstance the applicants’ introduction of ‘compliance measures’ and the fact that, on personnel grounds also, there is no risk of repetition;

               —

               disproportionality of the amount of the fine since the defendant failed to take into account as a mitigating circumstance the fact that the applicants did not stint in the supply of magnesium;

               —

               disproportionality of the amount of the fine since no account was taken of the applicants’ lack of resources.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Case C-35/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/25

         Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-35/07)
   (2007/C 56/49)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               in the alternative, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article of the directive;

               —

               an order for the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 136, 2004, p. 58.


title: Case C-280/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Amrita Soc. coop. Arl and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Protection of plant health — Directive 2000/29/EC — Protection against the introduction into and spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products — Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Person individually concerned)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/13

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Amrita Soc. coop. Arl and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-280/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act - Implementing measures - Person individually concerned))
   (2017/C 112/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Amrita Soc. coop. arl, Cesi Marta, Comune Agricola Lunella Soc. mutua coop. arl, Rollo Olga, Borrello Claudia, Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa di Consiglia, Marta e Vito Lisi, Marzo Luigi, Stasi Anna Maria, Azienda Agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi, Castriota Maria Grazia, Azienda Agricola di Canioni Fiorella, Azienda Agricola Spirdo ss agr., Impresa Agricola Stefania Stamerra, Azienda Agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco, Simone Cosimo Antonio, Masseria Alti Pareti Soc. agr. arl (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Amrita Soc. coop. arl, Dei Agre di Cesi Marta, Comune agricola Lunella Soc. mutua coop. arl, Azienda agricola Rollo Olga, Azienda agricola Borrello Claudia, Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa SNC, Azienda agricola di Marzo Luigi, Azienda agricola Stasi Anna Maria, Azienda agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi, Azienda agricola di Castriota Maria Grazia, Azienda agricola di Cagnoni Fiorella, Azienda agricola Spirdo ss agr., Impresa Agricola Stamerra Stefania, Azienda agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco, Azienda agricola di Simone Cosimo Antonio and Masseria Alti Pareti Soc. agr. Arl are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case F-57/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/33

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-57/11)
   2011/C 211/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission and a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision contained in the letter of 5 August 2010 not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission by decision contained in the letter of 30 July 2010, sent to him by e-mail on 30 July 2010, and to withdraw that offer;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, all acts preparatory to the contested decision;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority to reject the applicant’s complaint contained in the letter of 10 February 2011, sent to the applicant the following day;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the material damage arising from the decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission by decision contained in the letter of 30 July 2010; the damage is assessed on a provisional basis as the difference between the total actual remuneration received by the applicant in his position as temporary agent with the Joint Research Centre and that to which he would have been entitled if he had been engaged in due time following his acceptance of the offer of a post as official in step 1 of Grade AST 3, together with late payment interest.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage arising from the decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre in Ispra as technical assistant offered to him by the Commission in the decision in question contained in the letter of 30 July 2010, to be determined ex aequo et bono by the Civil Service Tribunal, assessed on a provisional basis for the purpose of this application at three times the basic monthly salary of an official in step 1 of Grade AST 3, in the total amount of EUR 10 001,31.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-293/97)

text:
C 94/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.
2. The applicant shall bear the entire costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                        awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                        drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH
                                                                   Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        tender.
                      (Case T-293/97)
                         (98/C 94/62)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   The applicant states that it submitted a tender on
An action against the Commission of the European                   14 October 1996 in response to the call for tenders No 95/
Communities was lodged at the Registry of the Court of             22/IXC1 (OJ C 142, 14.5.1996, p. 31) for the conclusion
Justice on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH, whose                    of a framework contract for the provision of training
registered office is at Dreiech (Federal Republic of               services intended for the Commission's drivers, by letter of
Germany); pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of         7 December 1997 it was informed by the Commission that
the EC Statute of the Court of Justice it was transmitted          its tender had not been successful. According to its
to the Registry of the Court of First Instance. The                information, the contract was awarded to Jesco Auto
applicant is represented by Günther Breit, Rechtsanwalt,           Training School, which had already obtained a similar
with an address for service at 33 Mercatorstraûe,                  contract with the Commission as from 1992.
Frankfurt am Main.
                                                                   The applicant maintains that the procedure for awarding
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the public contract was not in conformity with the
                                                                   applicable rules, in particular Articles 50 to 58 of the
Ð annul Commission Decision of 19 February 1997,                   Commission's financial Regulation of 21 December 1977
    addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, holding          applicable to the general budget of the European
    the remission of import duties amounting to DEM                Communities, Articles 126 to 129 of the Commission's
    113 875, 49 owed by the applicant to be unjustified            Financial Regulation of 9 December 1993 laying down
                                                                   detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions
                                                                   of the Financial Regulation and Council Directive 92/50/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                   procedures for the award of public contracts.
The pleas in law and the main arguments are analogous to
those relied on in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97,
T-191/97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/           It claims in this regard that:
97, T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 and T-280/97.
                                                                   Ð the Commission awarded the public contract in the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to 25.
                                                                        belief that it was in the framework of a closed
                                                                        procedure whereas the call for tenders, as
                                                                        communicated to the tenderers, was undeniably open
                                                                        and did not entail any pre-selection of tenders,
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA                     Ð the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   Contracts did not appear to have been sought,
                                                                        although the value of the contract exceeded the
                      (Case T-302/97)
                                                                        threshold beyond which that opinion must be sought,
                         (98/C 94/63)
                                                                   Ð the matching of tenders had not been carried out
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        lawfully,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it had not been notified of any reasoned decision for
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                      the award of the public contract, from which it
1997 by AZ Com SA, established in Luxembourg,                           follows that the statement of reasons for the decision
represented by Luc Van Damme, of the Brussels Bar, with                 to award the contract was inadequate,


title: Case T-425/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014  — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark e — Earlier Community figurative mark e — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)
   (Case T-425/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark e - Earlier Community figurative mark e - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 881/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Elite Licensing Company SA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-148/10 and T-149/10: Order of the General Court of 5 July 2013 — SK Hynix v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/51

         Order of the General Court of 5 July 2013 — SK Hynix v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-148/10 and T-149/10) (1)

   2013/C 260/92
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nordhorn by decision of that court of 30 October 1997 in the administrative criminal proceedings against Arnoldus Theodorus Maria van der Laan (Case C-383/97)

text:
10. 1. 98              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/9
measures to incorporate the Directive at issue fully into                Does the application of paragraph 17 (1) (2b) or (5)
Greek law. It thus seeks a declaration that the Hellenic                 of the Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenständegesetz in
Republic has committed that infringement.                                conjunction with Numbers 2.19/2.3411 et seq. of the
                                                                         Leitsätze für Fleisch und Fleischerzeugnisse of the German
(1) OJ L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 35.                                       Lebensmittelbuch by the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim
(2) OJ L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6.                                        or the Staatsanwaltschaft Osnabrück in the present case
                                                                         contravene Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty, that is,
                                                                         the prohibition of discrimination laid down there?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative
Court by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in the
case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for Science,               Action brought on 12 November 1997 by the Commission
                   Research and Technology                               of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                        (Case C-382/97)                                                              Republic
                           (98/C 7/19)                                                          (Case C-386/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European       Communities        by     an     order     of   the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof         (Administrative        Court)    of       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
22 October 1997, which was received at the Court                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 7 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                 on 12 November 1997 by the Commission of the
the case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for                    European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Science, Research and Technology on the following                        Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
question:                                                                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                         also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Can a right be derived from Article 48 of the EC Treaty
and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1),
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
which lay down the right of workers to freedom of
movement and to access to the labour market in the
Community, to the effect that, in a salary scheme in which
remuneration depends on, inter alia, length of service,                  Ð declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
work of equal value which was performed in another                           period the laws, regulations and administrative
Member State must be taken into account in exactly the                       provisions necessary to implement Council Directive
same way as such work performed in the Member State                          95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/433/
applying that scheme?                                                        EEC on conditions for the production and marketing
                                                                             of fresh meat (1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                             Directive;
                                                                         Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Nordhorn by decision of that court of 30 October 1997 in
the administrative criminal proceedings against Arnoldus
                Theodorus Maria van der Laan                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                        (Case C-383/97)                                  directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                         upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                           (98/C 7/20)
                                                                         When the time limit for the transposition of the Directive
                                                                         at issue into national law expired on 1 July 1995, the
                                                                         Hellenic Republic had not adopted appropriate measures
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for its full incorporation into Greek law.
European Communities by a decision of the Amtsgericht
Nordhorn (Nordhorn Local Court) of 30 October 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 November                  (1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 7.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative
criminal proceedings against Arnoldus Theodorus Maria
van der Laan on the following question:


title: Case T-20/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/26

         Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-20/13 P)
   2013/C 71/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant requests the Court: (1a) to declare that there is no legal basis for the judgment delivered on 6 November 2012 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission or (1b), in the alternative, to set aside the judgment in its entirety; and (2a), given that the state of the proceedings so permits: (2aa) grant all claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, including the claim that the EC (sic) be ordered to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings; or (2b), in the alternative, refer the case back to the court at first instance for a fresh decision on each of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment referred to above, which dismissed the action which had been referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 in Case T-20/09 Commission v Marcuccio, setting aside in part the judgment in Case F-41/06 ruling on the appellant’s action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 May 2005 by which he was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision, and on a claim that the Commission pay damages.
   The appellant relies on 7 grounds of appeal.

               1.

                  Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant’s interests, inherent in the serious, patent, flagrant, spectacular, manifest, irremediable and vital errores in iudicando.

               2.

               Total failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

               3.

               The contested decision is unlawful on the grounds, inter alia, of lack of competence on the part of the author of the decision, defects in the decision-making procedure, entailing breach of essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers in the form of abuse of process.

               4.

               Distortion and misapplication of the facts.

               5.

               Incorrect, false and unreasonable (application and) breach of the rules on evidence and a number of legal principles and rules of law.

               6.

               Failure to rule on a number of fundamental aspects of the case.

               7.

               Unlawfulness of a ruling that a complaint made by the appellant concerning the contested decision was inadmissible.


title: Case T-249/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless tubes and pipes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine — Calculation of the normal value — Cooperation of the Community industry — Adjustment — Functions comparable to those of an agent working on a commission basis — Single economic entity — Manifest error of assessment — Offer of an undertaking — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP v Council
   (Case T-249/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain seamless tubes and pipes, of iron or steel, originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine - Calculation of the normal value - Cooperation of the Community industry - Adjustment - Functions comparable to those of an agent working on a commission basis - Single economic entity - Manifest error of assessment - Offer of an undertaking - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons)
   2009/C 90/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT (Nikopol, Ukraine); and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT (Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine) (represented initially by: H.-G. Kamann and P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ricz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 of 27 June 2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and (EC) No 348/2000, terminating the interim and expiry reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and Romania and terminating the interim reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and Romania and in Croatia and Ukraine (OJ 2006 L 175, p. 4).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 of 27 June 2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and (EC) No 348/2000, terminating the interim and expiry reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and Romania and terminating the interim reviews of the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and Romania and in Croatia and Ukraine, in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for exports towards the European Community of the products manufactured by Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT) exceeds that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the intermediary of the affiliated trader, Sepco SA;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicants. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-462/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Hungary

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-462/12) (1)

   2014/C 102/38
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-185/13: Action brought on 26 March 2013 — CWP v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/47

         Action brought on 26 March 2013 — CWP v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)
   (Case T-185/13)
   2013/C 156/88
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CWP LLC (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2013 in Case R 2204/2011-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 8 445 561

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Continental’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Joined Cases C-313/96, C-356/96 and C-358/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directives 91/410/EEC, 93/21/EEC and 93/90/EEC)

text:
12 . 7 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 29 May 1997
                           of 29 May 1997
                                                                        in Joined Cases C-3 13/96, C-356/96 and C-358/96:
         in Case C-3 12/96: Commission of the European                  Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                Communities v. French Republic ( 1 )                                                  Belgium (')
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                  Failure to implement Directives 91/410/EEC, 93/21/EEC
Directive 93/36/EEC — Failure to transpose within the                                              and 93/90/EEC)
                          prescribed period)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/ 14 )
                              97/C 212/ 13
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Joined Cases C-3 13/96, C-356/96 and C-358/96 :
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                                                                        Hendrik van Lier, Jean-Francis Pasquier and Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen ) against Kingdom of Belgium ( Agent: Jan
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Devadder ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
             published in the European Court Reports)                   to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                        — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July 1991
In Case C-3 12/96 : Commission of the European                                adapting to technical progress for the 14th time
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier ) against French                        Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation
Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Philippe                            of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Martinet ) — application for a declaration that, by failing                   relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations                   of dangerous substances ( OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 ,
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                        p. 67),
Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                  — Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of 27 April 1993
contracts ( OJ No L 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ) and, in the                    adapting to technical progress for the 18th time
alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith                    Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 110, 4 . 5 . 1993 ,
of the adoption of such measures, the French Republic has                     p. 20 ), with the exception of the provisions of that
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in                   Directive applicable to mobile gas cylinders containing
particular Article 34 thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber)                    butane, propane or liquid petroleum gas, and
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                   — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October 1993
Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate                       concerning the list of substances referred to in
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May                       Article 13 ( 1 ) ( fifth indent ) of Directive 67/548/EEC
1997, in which it:                                                             ( OJ No L 277, 10 . 11 . 1993 , p. 33 ),
                                                                        and/or by failing to communicate the measures for their
                                                                        implementation, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            fulfil its obligations under those Directives — the Court
                                                                         ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
       period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                        President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur),
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                        D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;
       93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
                                                                        F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave
       for the award of public supply contracts, the French
                                                                        a judgment on 29 May 1997, the operative part of which
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the           is as follows :
       first paragraph of Article 34 (1 ) of that Directive;
                                                                         1 . By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               necessary to comply with:
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               — Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of 22 July
                                                                                1991 adapting to technical progress for
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .                                               the   14th     time    Council    Directive  67/548/
                                                                                EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions relating to
                                                                                the classification, packaging and labelling of
                                                                                dangerous substances,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12 . 7. 97
     — Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of 27 April                         15 April 1994 adapting to technical progress for the
         1993 adapting to technical progress for the 18th                  first time Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the
         time Directive 67/548/EEC, with the exception of                  deliberate release into the environment of genetically
         the provisions of that Directive applicable to                    modified organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium has
         mobile gas cylinders containing butane, propane or                failed to fulfil its obligations under the - first
         liquid petroleum gas, and                                         subparagraph of Article 2 of that Directive;
     — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October                   2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
          1 993 concerning the list of substances referred to
         in Article 13 (1 ) (fifth indent) of Directive 67/548/
         EEC,                                                         (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 2 of each of those Directives .
2 . The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.               Action brought on 22 April 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(') OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .                                                              ( Case C-154/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/16 )
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 on 22 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                             Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                         of 29 May 1997                               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
       in Case C-3 57/96: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( J )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 94/15/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        prescribed period)                            — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                           ( 97/C 212/15 )                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to implement Commission
                                                                           Directive 93/106/EC of 29 November 1993 amending
                 (Language of the case: French)                            Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones
                                                                           exposed to particular plant health risks in the
                                                                           Community H , the Hellenic Republic has failed to
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
           published in the European Court Reports)                        Directive,
In Case C-357/96 : Commission of the European                         — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Communities (Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) against Kingdom
of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Commission Directive 94/15/EC of 15 April 1994                   Pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 93/106/EC , the Member
adapting to technical progress for the first time Council             States were to adopt the measures needed to comply with
Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the               its provisions by 15 December 1993 and to inform the
environment of genetically modified organisms ( OJ No                  Commission thereof.
L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p. 20 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the
 Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of: G. F. Mancini ,                 The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,                yet brought its legislation into line with the Directive,
 P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges;              thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under the third
 D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                   paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:               Article 5 of the Treaty.
                                                                       (') OJ No L 298 , 3 . 12 . 1993 , p . 34 .
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary in order to
      comply with Commission Directive 94/15/EC of


title: Case T-35/11: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014  — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission (Actions for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission
   (Case T-35/11) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 409/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment in part of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

               3.

               Kyocera Mita Europe BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-288/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Huta Częstochowa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — State aid — Admissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/44

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Huta Częstochowa v Commission
   (Case T-288/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - State aid - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 331/97)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Huta Częstochowa S.A. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C.Sadkowski and D. Salajewski, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Article 3 of the Commission decision of 5 July 2005 cocerning State aid granted to the steel producer Huta Częstochowa S.A in Case No C 20/04, and for the joinder of that application with the application for suspension of operation brought by ISD Polska sp. z o.o.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 February 1996 in Case C-63/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Ireland): Fintan Duff and Others v. Minister for Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney General (Additional levy on milk - Special reference quantities on account of a development plan - Obligation or discretionary power)

text:
No C 133 /4           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 5 . 96
of capital duty and subsequently, with effect from 1 January               producers who had adopted milk production
1986, by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985,                     development plans under Council Directive
precludes the application of national laws maintaining at                  72/1 59/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of
1,20% the rate of registration duty on contributions of                    farms.
movable property made in the context of a merger.
                                                                      2 . No requirement flowing from the protection afforded
(>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                          by general principles of law, such as the protection
    OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                          of legitimate expectations, the prohibition of
                                                                           discrimination, proportionality and legal certainty, or
                                                                           by fundamental rights, such as the right to property and
                                                                           the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, imposes on
                                                                           the competent national authority any obligation, under
                                                                           the first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 857/84, to grant special reference quantities to
                                                                           producers who have adopted development plans, even
                                                                           where those plans had been approved by the competent
                                                                           authorities .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      3 . Consideration of the abovementioned general principles
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                   and fundamental rights has not disclosed any factor of
                    of 15 February 1996                                    such a nature as to affect the validity ofthe first indent of
                                                                           Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
in Case C-63/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court of Ireland ): Fintan Duff and Others v.
Minister for Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney                   (*) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                             General ( 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantities on
account of a development plan — Obligation or
                    discretionary power)
                          ( 96/C 133/06 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 15 February 1996
In Case C-63/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         in Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a                             v. Council of the European Union (^
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                              (Appeal — Transfer of waste)
court between Fintan Duff and Others and Minister for
Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney General — on the                                         ( 96/C 133/07 )
interpretation and validity of the first indent of Article 3(1 )
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                       (Language of the case: French)
to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p . 13 ) — the
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), G. F.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 February                In Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
1996 , in which it rules :                                            ( represented by Pierrot Schiltz, Jean-Claude Fourgoux and
                                                                      Christian Huglo ) — appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of 17 May 1994 in Case T-475/93 Buralux
                                                                      SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v. Council ( not published in the
1 . The first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Council Regulation          ECR ), seeking to have that order set aside,. the other party to
    (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                 the proceedings being the Council of the European Union
    rules for the application of the levy referred to in              ( Agents : Arthur Alan Dashwood and Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen )
    Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk              — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
    and milk products sector, read in the light of the third          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
    recital in the preamble to that Regulation, is to be              Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
    construed as not imposing on Member States an                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has
    obligation to grant a special reference quantity to               given a judgment on 15 February 1996 , in which it:


title: Case C-390/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o. v Ministerstvo zemědělství (Agriculture — Sugar sector — Common organisation of the markets — Application for restructuring aid — Undertaking by the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of quota sugar beet — Definition — Unilateral declaration of the producer — Refusal to grant aid — Need to terminate the existing delivery contract)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o. v Ministerstvo zemědělství
   (Case C-390/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Sugar sector - Common organisation of the markets - Application for restructuring aid - Undertaking by the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of quota sugar beet - Definition - Unilateral declaration of the producer - Refusal to grant aid - Need to terminate the existing delivery contract)
   2012/C 366/22
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CS AGRO Ronov s.r.o.

      Defendant: Ministerstvo zemědělství

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 4a of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 of 9 October 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2007 L 283, p. 8) — Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Meaning of ‘undertaking’ having to accompany an application for restructuring aid, whereby a sugar beet producer enters into an obligation to cease delivery of a certain quantity of quota sugar beet to the undertakings with which it concluded a supply contract during the previous marketing year — Refusal to grant restructuring aid on the ground that that undertaking should take the form of termination of the existing supply contract rather than a unilateral declaration by the producer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4a(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the European Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 of 9 October 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 may take the form of a unilateral declaration by the producer.

               2.

               Article 4a(1) of Regulation No 320/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1261/2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the unilateral undertaking of the producer to cease delivery of a certain quantity of sugar beet during the marketing year 2008/2009 does not as such entail the inapplicability of its contractual obligations towards the sugar company.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
5.12.2000         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 348/19
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (2000/C 348/20)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
          Communities C 348 A of 5 December 2000 the following notice of open competition:
          English edition:
          CJ/LA/4 (lawyer-linguists of English mother tongue)
          To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
          the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          Closing date for application: 31 January 2001.
                                          NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (2000/C 348/21)
          The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
          Communities C 348 A of 5 December 2000 the following notice of open competition:
          Italian edition:
          CJ/LA/8 (lawyer-linguists of Italian mother tongue)
          To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
          the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
          Closing date for application: 22 January 2001.


title: Case C-296/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State) by order of that court of  19 July 2005  in Minister for immigration and integration v Mr I. Günes

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State) by order of that court of 19 July 2005 in Minister for immigration and integration v Mr I. Günes
   (Case C-296/05)
   (2005/C 296/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council of State) of 19 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the Minister for immigration and integration and Mr I. Günes on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the concept of restriction in Article 41(1) of the additional protocol be interpreted as subsuming within it the requirement of a temporary residence authorisation to be applied for, under Article 3.71, first paragraph, of the Vb 2000, by a foreigner who is a Turkish national in that country or the country of permanent residence and in regard to which he must await a decision prior to coming to the Netherlands in the absence of which his application for leave to remain must be rejected?

               2a.

               If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative, must Article 41(1) of the additional protocol then be construed as meaning that a new restriction within the meaning of that provision is also constituted by a tightening of the national rules in regard to the requirement to be in possession of a temporary residence authorisation following a post-January 1973 relaxation of that requirement?

               2b.

               Is the reply to Question 2a different if the relaxation concerning the requirement of possession of a temporary residence authorisation was effected not in regard to the regulatory provision itself but in regard to policy and implementing practice?


title: Case T-120/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Proforec v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/66

         Action brought on 6 March 2015 — Proforec v Commission
   (Case T-120/15)
   (2015/C 138/85)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Proforec Srl (Recco, Italy) (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/39 of 13 January 2015 on the grounds put forward in the present action, as set out in full in the application;

               —

               as a result of the annulment, implement all the measures and steps necessary to remove the entry of the protected geographical indication ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio’ from the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. Should the present action be dismissed, quod non, the applicant requests that costs be shared.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the applicant, the contested implementing Regulation prevents it, in fact, from continuing to market its own product even though it is the proprietor of trade marks that were registered well before the date on which the application for protection was submitted to the Commission and even though it is common ground and undisputed that it has lawfully marketed its product within the European Union since 2006, that is to say, for more than five years.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1)

                           —

                           The applicant argues in this respect that, as regards the entry into force of the contested regulation, no provision has been made, or is made, for any transitional period whatsoever to allow for the disposal of stocks and packaging.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that recitals 5, 6 and 7 to the contested regulation are contradictory

                           —

                           The applicant argues in this respect that recitals 5 and 6 are at variance with recital 7 and that protection is also tacitly conferred on a designation in respect of which registration was not requested and which is liable to give rise to confusion as regards the geographical indication of the main ingredient.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s interpretation of the facts was wrong and a misuse of its power

                           —

                           The applicant maintains in this respect that recital 9 refers to the fact that existing products are allegedly jeopardised whilst denying that this is the case. However, such harm is not alleged but real and the claims of the association putting forward the proposal have given rise to anti-competitive conduct that is likely to harm, unlawfully, existing competitors on the market, undermining their acquired rights as a result of the misuse of power on the part of the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the transitional protection no longer applied

                           —

                           The applicant maintains in this respect that the statement of the facts in recital 10 to the contested regulation is incorrect in that the transitional national protection in Italy has expired since no programme of self-regulation concerning the product specification has been adopted.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(e) of Regulation No 1151/2012

                           —

                           The applicant maintains in this respect that the contested regulation, in prohibiting deep-freezing and preservation techniques, legitimises unlawful practices on the part of the association putting forward the proposal that are inconsistent with EU law and with the free movement of goods and services, the Commission distorting in recitals 11 and 12 the actual scope of the specification, which clearly infringes Regulation No 1151/2012.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-76/04 (1)

   (2004/C 239/22)
   By order of 11 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-76/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-22/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen -und Giroverband v Commission (Application for interim measures — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/12

         Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen -und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-22/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2011/C 120/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen -und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A.Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010 C(2010) 9525 final State aid, MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 — Germany — WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows that Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s new operations after 15 February 2011 must be terminated.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for suspension of operation is rejected.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s application for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-70/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Baele and Others v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Baele and Others v Commission
   (Case F-70/06) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 317/93
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 36.


title: Case C-326/08: Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-326/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/69

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-600/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/20

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-600/14)
   2014/C 361/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, order the European Union to pay full compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, in the amount of EUR 48 8 8 29  000;

               —

               in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert to establish the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.


title: Case T-444/05: Action brought on  21 December 2005  — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/40

         Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission
   (Case T-444/05)
   (2006/C 48/77)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo (NLG) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: Salvatore Ravenna, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2005 refusing access to data and information concerning the extra costs arising as a result of PSO (public service obligations) and payments to offset those costs in respect of the services carried out by Caremar SpA on the Naples Beverello-Capri route;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-109/05 Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission. (1)

   It should, however, be stated that the contested decision in Case T-109/05 is based on Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the decision at issue in this case is based on Article 4(4) and (5) of that regulation. Accordingly, it was not Caremar that was consulted, as ‘third party author’ of the documents/data to which access was requested, but rather it was the Italian authorities, which did not issue the documents of the case and had no concerns relating to commercial interests, that were consulted.
   Further, that consultation was carried out in an artificial manner, given that the Member States have exclusive competence together with a right of veto which is binding on the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005, p. 43.


title: Case C-284/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Taxation of dividends — Dividends distributed to companies established in national territory and to companies established in another Member State or a State of the European Economic Area — Different treatment)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-284/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Taxation of dividends - Dividends distributed to companies established in national territory and to companies established in another Member State or a State of the European Economic Area - Different treatment)
   2011/C 362/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents, and Professor A. Kube)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legislation fully exempting from withholding tax the dividends paid by subsidiaries to parent companies established in national territory, whereas, with regard to parent companies established in another Member State or State of the European Economic Area, that legislation makes that total exemption subject to the condition that the minimum threshold for the parent company’s shareholdings in the share capital of the subsidiary set out in Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) is reached

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by taxing dividends distributed to companies established in other Member States, where the threshold for a parent company’s holding in the capital of its subsidiary laid down in Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003, is not reached, more heavily in economic terms than dividends distributed to companies established in its territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC;

               2.

               Declares that, by taxing dividends distributed to companies established in Iceland and Norway more heavily in economic terms than dividends distributed to companies established in its territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-170/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-170/08)
   (2008/C 197/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Question referred
   Must Article 3a of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1), read in conjunction with Article 2(r) and (s) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2), be interpreted as preventing only the perpetuation of a reduction or exclusion applied under Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001, or is that provision also applicable to reductions or exclusions applied on the basis of other regulations?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 41, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).