title: Opinion 2/15: Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 16 May 2017 — European Commission (Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore — ‘New generation’ trade agreement negotiated after the entry into force of the EU and FEU Treaties — Competence to conclude the agreement — Article 3(1)(e) TFEU — Common commercial policy — Article 207(1) TFEU — Trade in goods and services — Foreign direct investment — Public procurement — Commercial aspects of intellectual property — Competition — Trade with third States and sustainable development — Social protection of workers — Environmental protection — Article 207(5) TFEU — Services in the field of transport — Article 3(2) TFEU — International agreement which may affect common rules or alter their scope — Rules of secondary EU law concerning freedom to provide services in the field of transport — Non-direct foreign investment — Article 216 TFEU — Agreement necessary in order to achieve one of the objectives of the Treaties — Free movement of capital and of payments between Member States and third States — Succession of treaties concerning investment — Replacement of the investment agreements between Member States and the Republic of Singapore — Institutional provisions of the agreement — Investor-State dispute settlement — Dispute settlement between the Parties)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/3

         Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 16 May 2017 — European Commission
   (Opinion 2/15) (1)

   ((Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore - ‘New generation’ trade agreement negotiated after the entry into force of the EU and FEU Treaties - Competence to conclude the agreement - Article 3(1)(e) TFEU - Common commercial policy - Article 207(1) TFEU - Trade in goods and services - Foreign direct investment - Public procurement - Commercial aspects of intellectual property - Competition - Trade with third States and sustainable development - Social protection of workers - Environmental protection - Article 207(5) TFEU - Services in the field of transport - Article 3(2) TFEU - International agreement which may affect common rules or alter their scope - Rules of secondary EU law concerning freedom to provide services in the field of transport - Non-direct foreign investment - Article 216 TFEU - Agreement necessary in order to achieve one of the objectives of the Treaties - Free movement of capital and of payments between Member States and third States - Succession of treaties concerning investment - Replacement of the investment agreements between Member States and the Republic of Singapore - Institutional provisions of the agreement - Investor-State dispute settlement - Dispute settlement between the Parties))
   (2017/C 239/03)
   Language of the procedure: all the official languages

      Requested by

   European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, B. De Meester, R. Vidal-Puig and M. Kocjan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part

   The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union, with the exception of the following provisions, which fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States:

               —

               the provisions of Section A (Investment Protection) of Chapter 9 (Investment) of that agreement, in so far as they relate to non-direct investment between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore;

               —

               the provisions of Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) of Chapter 9; and

               —

               the provisions of Chapters 1 (Objectives and General Definitions), 14 (Transparency), 15 (Dispute Settlement between the Parties), 16 (Mediation Mechanism) and 17 (Institutional, General and Final Provisions) of that agreement, in so far as those provisions relate to the provisions of Chapter 9 and to the extent that the latter fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case T-322/09: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/78

         Order of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Al-Faqih and MIRA v Council and Commission
   (Case T-322/09) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/174
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Saad Al-Faqih (London, United Kingdom) and Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jones, Barrister, and A. Raja, solicitor)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by R. Szostak and E. Finnegan, then by E. Finnegan and J.-P. Hix, agents); and European Commission (represented by T. Scharf and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9), as amended for the 42nd time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2005 of 5 January 2005 (OJ 2005 L 5, p. 10), for the 48th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2005 of 20 July 2005 (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 27), for the 75th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 492/2007 of 3 May 2007 (OJ 2007 L 116, p. 5) and for the 116th time by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1102/2009 of 16 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 39), and/or an application for annulment of Regulations Nos 14/2005, 1190/2005, 492/2007 and 1102/2009, in so far as they concern the applicants

      Operative part of the order

   The General Court orders:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union and the European Commission shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-36/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  30 March 2006  — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 — Articles 3, 4 and 6 — Management of the fishing effort — Community fishing areas and resources — Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 March 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-36/04) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 - Articles 3, 4 and 6 - Management of the fishing effort - Community fishing areas and resources - Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 143/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Monteiro and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents,)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


title: Case T-399/13: Order of the General Court of 10 October 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/20

         Order of the General Court of 10 October 2013 — KO-Invest v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (Milkoshake For Active People)
   (Case T-399/13) (1)

   2013/C 359/38
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.


title: Case C-91/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2017 by Cellnex Telecom S.A., formerly Abertis Telecom S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15, Abertis Telecom Terrestre S.A. and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. v European Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2017 by Cellnex Telecom S.A., formerly Abertis Telecom S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2016 in Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15, Abertis Telecom Terrestre S.A. and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, S.A. v European Commission
   (Case C-91/17 P)
   (2017/C 129/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Cellnex Telecom S.A., formerly Abertis Telecom S.A (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and SES Astra

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               give final judgment on the action for annulment and annul the Commission’s decision; and

               —

               order the European Commission and SES Astra to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the judgment under appeal, the General Court confirms a Commission decision on State aid concerning various measures adopted by the public authorities of the Spanish Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha in order to ensure that the digital terrestrial television (DTT) signal reaches remote and less urbanised areas of the territory, in which only 2,5 % of the population live. In that decision, the Commission recognised that, in material terms, the market would not offer that service in the absence of public intervention. Nevertheless, it questioned whether the activity was classified as a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in the Spanish legislation, stating that, from a formal perspective, that activity had not been ‘clearly’ defined and commissioned by the public authorities. The Commission also stated that, in any event, those authorities were not empowered to opt for a certain technology when they organised the SGEI.
   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Articles 14, 106(2) and 107(1) TFEU and of Protocol No 26 annexed to the TFEU on Services of General Interest.
   In particular, the appellant submits that the General Court erred:

               —

               by going beyond the limit of the ‘manifest error’ in the assessment of the various measures defining and allocating SGEIs;

               —

               by unduly limiting the ‘wide discretion’ of the Member States, which applies both to the definition and the ‘organisation’ of the SGIE and therefore includes the choice of the methods of providing the SGIE and the choice of a specific technology, irrespective of whether they are set out in the measure defining the SGIE or in a separate measure;

               —

               by analysing the applicable Spanish law, distorting the meaning of the provisions analysed and of the case-law interpreting those provisions, and interpreting it in a manner which is manifestly contrary to its content and giving some information a scope which it should not have in relation to other information;

               —

               by failing to observe that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and the ‘commissioning’ of the SGEI to one or more undertakings may take place in one or more measures;

               —

               by failing to observe that the ‘definition’ of the SGEI and its ‘commissioning’ do not require the use of a specific formula or expression, but rather a material and functional analysis; and

               —

               by quantifying the alleged advantage received as the total amount of the contracts concluded by the public authorities, disregarding the fact that that amount is not a non-repayable subsidy, but rather constitutes consideration for the goods and services that the undertaking in question provided to the State.


title: Case C-547/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Ltd, British American Tobacco UK Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 2014/40/EU — Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) — Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(1)(a), (c) and (g), 13 and 14 — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis — Article 114 TFEU — Principle of proportionality — Principle of subsidiarity — Fundamental rights of the European Union — Freedom of expression — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 11)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Ltd, British American Tobacco UK Ltd v The Secretary of State for Health
   (Case C-547/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) - Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(1)(a), (c) and (g), 13 and 14 - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Validity - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Principle of subsidiarity - Fundamental rights of the European Union - Freedom of expression - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 11))
   (2016/C 243/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, on the application of: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Ltd, British American Tobacco UK Ltd

      Defendant: The Secretary of State for Health

      Interested parties and interveners: Imperial Tobacco Ltd, JT International SA, Gallaher Ltd, Tann UK Ltd, Tannpapier GmbH, V. Mane Fils, Deutsche Benkert GmbH & Co. KG, Benkert UK Ltd, Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 24(2) of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC must be interpreted as permitting Member States to maintain or introduce further requirements in relation to aspects of the packaging of tobacco products which are not harmonised by that directive.

               2.

               Article 13(1) of Directive 2014/40 must be interpreted as prohibiting the display, on the labelling of unit packets and on the outside packaging, as well as on the tobacco product itself, of any information covered by that provision, even if the information concerned is factually accurate.

               3.

               Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 7, 18 and 24(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/40 or that of the provisions of Chapter II of Title II of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Case C-102/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Focșani (Romania) lodged on 24 February 2010 — Frăsina Bejan v Tudorel Mușat

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Focșani (Romania) lodged on 24 February 2010 — Frăsina Bejan v Tudorel Mușat
   (Case C-102/10)
   2010/C 113/47
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Focșani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bejan Frăsina

      Defendant: Mușat Tudorel Adrian

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 40a of Law No 136/1995 (1) and of Articles 1 to 6, in particular Articles 3 and 6, of Decree 3111/2004 of the Comisia de Supraveghere a Asigurărilor (Insurance Supervisory Council), (2) in conjunction with the provisions of Article 10(3) of Law No 136/1995, breach the provisions of Article 169 TFEU (formerly Article 153 EC)?

               2.

               If the national law of a Member State provides than an injured party has no right to compensation under a contract of civil-liability motor insurance where: the accident was caused deliberately, the accident occurred in the commission of facts punishable under the criminal law on road traffic as criminal offences, the accident occurred while the person who had committed the offence with intent was attempting to escape from the forces of law and order, the person responsible for the damage was driving the vehicle without the permission of the insured person — are those provisions excessively restrictive for the achievement of the objective pursued, namely, social protection, or, in other words, ensuring that injured persons are able to obtain compensation for the destruction of their property, and do they go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective?

               3.

               In the event that the second question is answered in the negative, does the restriction imposed place the injured person in a situation in which that person is treated less favourably than nationals of other Member States of the European Union who are denied compensation only in the cases set out under Article 2(1), first to third indents, of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC (3) of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles?

               4.

               Do the exclusions from the insured risk imposed by national law in the situations outlined amount to a restriction on the freedom of establishment or on the freedom to provide services, contrary to Articles 49 TFEU (formerly Article 43 EC) and 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 EC), in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 92/49/EEC (4) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive)?

               5.

               Where the national law of a Member State of the European Union provides that the victim of a road accident may seek from the person responsible compensation in respect of expenses arising from the repair or, where appropriate, the replacement of the motor vehicle, together with any other expenses, is the exemption of the insurer from any obligation to reimburse the injured party during an initial phase following a road traffic accident (the period immediately after the accident occurred), such that, subsequently, in accordance with the procedures for the resolution of the dispute and, in particular, the procedures for identifying the party responsible for the damage, the insurer is entitled to bring an action in recourse, so as to facilitate the rapid, effective resolution of demands for compensation and to avoid, as far as possible, costly legal proceedings which might make it impossible for the parties to enforce their rights, even in situations in which the provisions of Directive 2003/8/EC (5) and Recommendations R(81)7 and R(93)1 might apply, to be considered abusive and against the spirit of the recitals in the preambles to all of the directives on civil-liability motor vehicle insurance?

               6.

               In the event that the fifth question is answered in the negative, is that situation contrary to what is provided for in recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 2005/14/EC (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles?

               7.

               Is the applicant’s exclusion from cover in the present case, under her contract of civil-liability motor vehicle insurance, of such a kind as to place her in a situation which is less favourable than that of other persons who would receive compensation even if the party responsible for the damage were to remain unidentified or be uninsured, taking into account the fact that the applicant has signed both a compulsory civil-liability motor vehicle insurance policy and an optional policy, both of which were quite expensive, but has not received any kind of protection cover for her property?

               8.

               Is the national court the only body which is competent to determine whether an undertaking, such as the insurance company here in question, meets the criteria for reliance to be placed, as against it, on the provisions of a directive that produces direct effects and, if so, what criteria are applicable?

               9.

               Is the failure of a Member State of the European Union to transpose Directive 2005/14/CE into national law (despite the expiry on 11 June 2007 of the period allowed for transposition) and, in particular, the failure to transpose what is provided for in recitals 20 to 22 in the preamble to that directive, such as to harm the applicant by infringing one of her fundamental rights, namely the right to respect for her property, even though Directive 2009/103/EC (7) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability has now repealed the First to Fifth Motor Insurance Directives (72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC, 2000/26/EC and 2005/14/EC), given that the legal rules to which the present court has referred are contained in full in the text of the new EC Directive, which, to a far greater extent than was the case under the repealed provisions, protects the rights of a person who has suffered damage as the result of a road accident?

               10.

               Is the national court entitled to raise of its own motion the issue of breach of a provision of Community law and to rule that an insurance risk exclusion clause is null and void in a case where the injured party, that is to say, the consumer, has not been informed as to the exclusions (situations in which the insurance does not actually operate, by contrast with the scheme under Directive 2005/14/EC) and where the insurance company has imposed other exclusion clauses in addition to those provided for by the Romanian framework law on insurance, Law No 136/1995, even where the possible nullity of the clause has not been raised before the court by the person entitled to do so and even though national legislation has transposed the provisions of Directive 93/13/EC (8) by means of Law No 193/2000 (9) — Monitorul Oficial al României (Official Journal of Romania), Part I, of [10 November 2000, no 560] (supplemented by Law No 363/2006 on abusive clauses in contracts between businesses and consumers — Monitorul Oficial of 28 December 2007, no 899)?

      (1)  Law No 136/1995 privind asigurările și reasigurările în România, M. Of., Partea I, nr. 303 din 30.12.1995.

      (2)  Order No 3111/2004 al Comisiei de Supraveghere a Asigurărilor, M. Of., Partea I, nr. 1243/2004 din 23.12.2004.

      (3)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17, Capital Special Edition 06/vol.1, p. 104).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1, Capital Special Edition 06/vol. 2., p. 53).

      (5)  Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes (OJ 2003 L 26, p. 41, Capital Special Edition 19/vol. 6., p. 41).

      (6)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 14, Capital Special Edition 06/vol. 7., p. 212).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 103/2009 of 3 February 2009 amending Annexes VII and IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 34, p. 11).

      (8)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Capital Special Edition 15/vol. 2, p. 273).

      (9)  Law No 193/2000 privind clauzele abuzive din contractele încheiate între comercianți și consumatori, M. Of., nr. 560 din 10.11.2000, completată prin Legea nr. 363/2007 privind combaterea practicilor incorecte ale comercianților în relația cu consumatorii și armonizarea reglementărilor cu legislația europeană privind protecția consumatorilor — M. Of., Partea I, nr. 899 din 28.12.2007).


title: Case C-87/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2016 by Kenzo Tsujimoto against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-528/13: Kenzo v EUIPO — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/2

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2016 by Kenzo Tsujimoto against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-528/13: Kenzo v EUIPO — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)
   (Case C-87/16 P)
   (2016/C 428/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, M. Ring, W. von der Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kenzo, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 21 July 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case F-104/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Bartha v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Reopening of the competition procedure — Measures of execution of the judgment in Case F-50/08)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Bartha v Commission
   (Case F-104/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 - Reopening of the competition procedure - Measures of execution of the judgment in Case F-50/08)
   2013/C 377/45
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gabór Bartha (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, B. Bottka, A, Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of EPSO decision to reopen the procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/56/06 and the decision of the selection board relating to the results of competition EPSO/AD/56/06 — Administrator grade A5 with Hungarian citizenship and payment of compensation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bartha to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2013, p. 68.


16.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 151/7
    What must be the rate that it is legally appropriate to       requirements laid down in the Annex and Article 5) and
    adopt, in the absence of any applicable domestic law          on 31 December 1994 (as regards the remainder of the
    and of any choice thus made by the Member State               provisions).
    within the bracket allowed by the directive?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
                                                                  (2) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998, p. 12.
    In other words, what must be the scope of the
    directive in such circumstances and must it be
    considered that the applicable rate is: 1 %? 0 %? and
    why not 0,25 % or 0,50 %?
(1) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                         Removal from the register of Case C-287/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 151/12)
                                                                  By order of 17 September 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-287/97: (Reference
                                                                  for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of              Bassano del Grappa): Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain            Sociale S. Rocco Scarl.
                       (Case C-73/98)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                        (98/C 151/11)
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Juan Guerra FernaÂndez and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-160/97 (1)
GeÂrard Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                                 (98/C 151/13)
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                  By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-160/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
    or to notify, the laws, regulations or administrative         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and
    controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (1) as amended
    by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
    1993, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty, and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-173/97 (1)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 151/14)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-173/97: Commission
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to              of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
those in Case C-66/98 (2); the period for implemen-
tation expired on 31 December 1993 (as regards the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.


title: Case C-545/15: Order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 March 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-545/15) (1)

   (2016/C 260/44)
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case T-428/15: Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SUMOST-02)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/18

         Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SUMOST-02)
   (Case T-428/15)
   (2015/C 328/18)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

      Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Community plant variety right at issue:‘SUMOST-02’ — Application for registration No 2001/1759

      Procedure before the CPVO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A007/2009

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the CPVO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 48(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 and of the rules on the burden of proof and the taking of evidence.


title: Case C-105/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/20

         Appeal brought on 19 February 2016 by the Republic of Poland against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission

   (Case C-105/16 P)
   (2016/C 136/26)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission, in so far as that judgment rejected the first complaint relating to the requirement that at least 50 % of the financial assistance be used for restructuring measures, put forward in the context of the first plea in the action seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 2436) (1);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 2436) in so far as an extrapolated correction of 11 %, in the amounts of EUR 4 583 950,92 and EUR 39 583 726,30, was carried out in that decision in regard to the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland for support of semi-subsistence farms;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 December 2015 in Case T-367/13, Republic of Poland v European Commission, in so far as that judgment rejected the first complaint relating to the requirement that at least 50 % of the financial assistance be used for restructuring measures, put forward in the context of the first plea in the action seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2013) 2436) (OJ L 123 of 4.5.2013, p. 11) in so far as an extrapolated correction of 11 %, in the amounts of EUR 4 583 950,92 and EUR 39 583 726,30, was carried out in that decision in regard to the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland for support of semi-subsistence farms, and to order the European Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
   In the judgment under appeal the General Court dismissed the action brought by the Republic of Poland seeking annulment of the Commission decision providing for financial corrections of EUR 8 292 783,94 and EUR 71 610 559,39 to be applied to the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland in respect of support for semi-subsistence farms.
   The Commission alleged that the Republic of Poland committed five breaches in regard to the release of funds for the support of semi-subsistence farms, including failure to comply with the requirement under Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999 (2) that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the support for restructuring measures. This breach formed the basis on which the Commission carried out an extrapolated correction, in the amount of 11 %, of the notified expenditure for the support for semi-subsistence farms, which corresponded to the percentage of applications in which, out of a random check of 100 application documents checked by the Commission, it transpired that there had not been compliance with the requirement that half of the financial assistance had to be used for restructuring.
   In that context the Republic of Poland puts forward, as a ground challenging the judgment under appeal, the contention that there was a misinterpretation of Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999 consisting in the assumption that the granting of support for semi-subsistence farms presupposes that at least 50 % of the aid would be used for restructuring measures, even though such a requirement finds no support in the provisions of EU law.
   The erroneous interpretation of the abovementioned provision, it argues, led to the assumption by the General Court that the Commission had correctly proceeded in the contested decision on the assumption that the Republic of Poland ought to have approved only the original applications for financial assistance in which the farmers seeking to benefit from the support had in particular undertaken to use at least 50 % of the aid for restructuring measures.
   The complaint alleging failure to comply with the requirement that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the support for restructuring measures constitutes, according to the appellant, the basis for the extrapolated correction, in the amount of 11 %, of the notified expenditure for the support for semi-subsistence farms.
   In the view of the Republic of Poland, the requirement that the farmer must use at least 50 % of the aid for restructuring measures does not follow from EU law. It submits that no provision of EU law in which the conditions for the granting of support for semi-subsistence farms are laid down in detail makes provision for the condition that at least 50 % of the assistance must be used for restructuring measures. Article 33b of Regulation No 1257/1999, it submits, does not provide for any such condition. Nor has such a requirement been set by the Commission in Regulation No 141/2004 (3) with implementing provisions for specific measures for rural development provided for in Chapter IXa of Regulation No 1257/1999.
   The Polish authorities, it is argued, therefore did not infringe their monitoring obligations with regard to the abovementioned conditions for the granting of support in the context of the measure ‘Support for Semi-Subsistence Farms’. There is thus no justification for making a financial correction in regard to any such breach. Consequently, the General Court erred in dismissing the action for a declaration annulling Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU in so far as an extrapolated correction in the amount of 11 % of the expenditure notified by the Republic of Poland for the support for semi-subsistence farms had been carried out in that decision.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 123, p. 11.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 141/2004 of 28 January 2004 laying down rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 as regards the transitional rural development measures applicable to the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 25).


title: Case C-546/10 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative sign representing the headstock of a guitar — Refusal to register — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Ex officio examination of the facts — Articles 7(1)(b) and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court — Equality of treatment)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/23

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (Case C-546/10 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative sign representing the headstock of a guitar - Refusal to register - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Ex officio examination of the facts - Articles 7(1)(b) and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Admissibility of evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court - Equality of treatment)
      (2012/C 25/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Hans-Peter Wilfer (represented by: W. Prinz, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-458/08 Wilfer v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action of annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2008, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the examiner who partially refused registration of the figurative sign representing the headstock of a guitar coloured silver, grey and brown as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 9 to 15 — Distinctiveness of a figurative sign constituted by the two-dimensional representation of part of the product

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mr Wilfer is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-141/09: Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-141/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/76

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-507/09 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by Goldman Management AD against the judgment delivered on 16 November 2009 in Case T-354/09

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/15

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by Goldman Management AD against the judgment delivered on 16 November 2009 in Case T-354/09
   (Case C-507/09 P)
   ()
   2010/C 221/24
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Goldman Management AD (represented by: I. Lilkova, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Bulgaria
   By Order of 6 May 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) declared the appeal manifestly inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-327/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht, Cologne): Jürgen Dudda v. Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 17 (2) and Article 3 (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and of Article 3 (b) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive 79/1072/EEC - Refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

text:
No C 354/ 8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
      capital must be interpreted as applying, where a                       he provides constitutes a prerequisite for the
      company benefits from an interest-free loan, to the                    performance of the principal artistic or entertainment
      amount of interest saved.                                              service supplied.
2 . Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC does not preclude                2 . The fact that the person concerned has undertaken in
      the levying of income tax on a parent company which                    addition to coordinate the sound effects to be produced
      has granted an interest-free loan to one of its                        with his assistance with certain visual effects produced
      subsidiaries, on the basis of interest fixed after the                 by other persons cannot affect the answer given to the
      event.                                                                 first question.
( 1 ) OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .                                    (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                      of 26 September 1996
                                                                                of 26 September 1996
in Case C-327/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht, Cologne ): Jiirgen Dudda v. Finanzamt                in Case C-43/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                       Bergisch Gladbach (')                            Hogsta Domstolen ): Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny
                                                                                Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics (')
 ( Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 17 (2) and
Article 3 (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and of Article 3 (b)              (Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive                       nationality — Security for the costs of judicial
 79/1072/EEC — Refund of value added tax to taxable                                                 proceedings)
    persons not established in the territory of the country)                                       ( 96/C 354/ 15 )
                            ( 96/C 354/ 14 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-43/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-327/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177             the EC Treaty from the Hogsta Domstolen [ Supreme
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht [Finance Court],                Court], Stockholm, for a preliminary ruling in the
 Cologne ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the                    proceedings pending before that court between Data
 proceedings pending before that court between Jiirgen                  Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg, and MSL
 Dudda and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach on the                           Dynamics Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EC
 interpretation of Article 9 ( 2 ) of the sixth Council Directive       Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of: C. N.
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Kakouris , President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola ,
 common system of value added tax : uniform basis of                    Advocate-General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
 assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ), the Court ( Sixth             26 September 1996 , the operative part of which is as
 Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                 follows :
 President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray,
Judges ; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein,                The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be
 Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September                  interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring
  1996 in which it rules :
                                                                        security to be lodged for the costs ofjudicial proceedings by
                                                                        a legal person established in another Member State which
  1 . The first indent of Article 9 (2) (c) of the sixth Council         has brought, before one of its courts, an action against one
       Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                        of its nationals or a company established in the Member
       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating           State in question , where no such requirement can be
       to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:             imposed on legal persons from that State, in a situation in
       uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as                which the action is connected with the exercise of
       covering the activity of a person who provides                    fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
       sound-engineering for artistic or entertainment events
       by choosing and operating the equipment used,                     (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
       adjusting it to the particular acoustic conditions and the
       desired sound effects, and who supplies the requisite
       equipment and operating staff, where the service which


title: Case C-529/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Andrea Lange v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-529/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/31
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9. 2. 2013.


title: Case T-708/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Cham et Bena Properties v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Cham et Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-708/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/61)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/1

         (2007/C 56/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

      OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

      OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-231/04: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramuscello e S. Vito v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Veneto (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — External relations — Agreement between the EC and Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names — Protection in the Community of a name relating to certain wines originating in Hungary — Geographical indication Tokaj — Exchange of letters — Possibility of using the word Tocai in the term Tocai friulano or Tocai italico for the description and presentation of certain Italian wines, in particular quality wines produced in specified regions ( quality wines psr ), during a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007 — Exclusion of that possibility at the end of the transitional period — Validity — Legal basis — Article 133 EC — Principles of international law relating to treaties — Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement — Protection of fundamental rights — Right to property)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/14

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramuscello e S. Vito v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Veneto
   (Case C-231/04) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - External relations - Agreement between the EC and Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names - Protection in the Community of a name relating to certain wines originating in Hungary - Geographical indication ‘Tokaj’ - Exchange of letters - Possibility of using the word ‘Tocai’ in the term ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai italico’ for the description and presentation of certain Italian wines, in particular quality wines produced in specified regions (‘quality wines psr’), during a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007 - Exclusion of that possibility at the end of the transitional period - Validity - Legal basis - Article 133 EC - Principles of international law relating to treaties - Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement - Protection of fundamental rights - Right to property)
   (2006/C 224/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring Court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties

      Applicants: Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramuscello e S. Vito

      Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Veneto
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Validity of the EC-Hungary Agreement of 23 November 1993 on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names — Validity of an exchange of letters between the parties to the agreement establishing a ban on use of the name ‘Tocai’ in Italy from 2007 onwards
   Operative part of the order

               (1)

               The Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93/742/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and of the Commission of 13 December 1993 does not constitute the legal basis of Council Decision 93/724/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names.

               (2)

               Article 133 EC, as referred to in the preamble to Decision 93/724, constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the conclusion by the Community alone of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names.

               (3)

               The ban on the use of the name ‘Tocai’ in Italy after 31 March 2007, resulting from the exchange of letters concerning Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, is not contrary to the regime governing homonymous geographical indications in Article 4(5) of that Agreement.

               (4)

               The joint declaration regarding Article 4(5) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, insofar as it outlines, in its first paragraph, that, as regards Article 4(5)(a) of the same Agreement, the contracting parties noted that, at the time of the negotiations, they did not know of any specific case where the provisions in question might apply, does not constitute a manifestly erroneous interpretation of reality.

               (5)

               Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, found at Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, concluded on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the present one concerning homonymy between a geographical indication of a non-member country and a vine name used for the description and presentation of certain Community wines produced from those vines, these provisions do not require that both the names can continue to be used in the future, notwithstanding the twofold fact that they have been used in the past by the respective producers either in good faith or for at least 10 years prior to 15 April 1994 and that each name indicates clearly the country or region or area of origin of the protected wine to which it refers in such a way as not to mislead consumers.

               (6)

               The right to property does not preclude the ban imposed on the producers of the Friuli-Venezia Giulio region (Italy) concerning use of the term ‘Tocai’ in the names ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai italico’ for the description and presentation of certain quality Italian wines produced in a specified region after the transitional period ending on 31 March 2007, as provided for in the exchange of letters concerning Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, annexed to that Agreement but not forming part of it.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.


title: Case C-9/03: Action brought on 10 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/15
Action brought on 10 January 2003 by the Commission                    products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of
of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy                    national health insurance systems, under which a decision of
                         of Luxembourg                                 the competent national authority refusing permission to
                                                                       market a medicinal product at the price proposed by the
                           (Case C-9/03)                               applicant must contain a statement of reasons ‘based on
                                                                       objective and verifiable criteria’, mean that the competent
                         (2003/C 55/25)                                authority under domestic Belgian legislation must lay down in
                                                                       advance by way of a generally applicable provision the criteria
                                                                       to be taken into consideration by the authority ruling on the
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was                    individual application, or is the decision-making authority
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           permitted to state in each individual decision the objective and
                                                                       verifiable criteria on which it based its refusal, in that case, to
ties on 10 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting            grant the application, or is it sufficient for the authority to
                                                                       provide a formal statement of the reasons for its individual
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       decision by citing actual evidence from the file and for the
                                                                       courts then to review whether that evidence constitutes an
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 objective and verifiable criterion?
the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parlia-
      ment and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions
      for the protection of consumers’ interests (1), the Grand-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;
—     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 14 January 2003 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
The period for transposition laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 1 January 2001.
                                                                                (Case C-15/03)
( 1) OJ 1998 L 166, p. 51.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/27)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van                     An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
State, Afdeling Administratie by order of that Court of                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
9 December 2002 in the case of NV Boss Pharma against                  on 14 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Economic                Communities, represented by Dr Jürgen Grunwald, legal
                              Affairs                                  adviser of the European Commission and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                       of its legal service, with an address for service at the office of
                                                                       Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal service,
                          (Case C-11/03)
                                                                       Wagner Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
                         (2003/C 55/26)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Raad van State,                   1.    Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its
Afdeling Administratie (Council of State, Administrative Div-                obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/
ision) of 9 December 2002, received at the Court Registry on                 439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (1)
13 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of NV                  by failing to take the legal and practical measures
Boss Pharma against Belgian State, represented by the Minister               necessary to ensure that priority is given to the treatment
for Economic Affairs on the following question:                              by way of regeneration of waste oils, so long as that is
                                                                             not precluded by technical, financial and organisational
                                                                             constraints.
On a proper interpretation, does Article 2(2) of Council
Directive 89/105/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 relating to the
transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal            2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case C-678/13: Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/5

         Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-678/13)
   2014/C 61/08
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Milanowska, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 258 TFEU, that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to, inter alia, supplies of:

                           —

                           medical equipment, aids and other appliances which are not intended for the exclusive personal use of disabled persons and/or which are not normally intended to alleviate or treat disability;

                           —

                           products such as, inter alia, disinfectants, products and preparations for pharmaceutical use, as well as spa products, which are not pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health care, prevention of illnesses or as treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, or products used for contraception and sanitary protection,

                     mentioned in Annex 3 to the Polish Law on VAT with reference to medical equipment, medical goods and pharmaceutical products, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 98 of the VAT Directive, (1) in conjunction with Annex III to that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the Commission submits that the Republic of Poland applies a reduced rate of VAT to goods which do not belong in any of the categories of goods mentioned in Annex III to the VAT Directive. Those goods must, however, be made subject to tax at the standard rate as they cannot come within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 98(2) of the Directive.
   In the Commission’s view, the goods in issue cannot be classified as being either pharmaceutical products of a kind normally used for health case, prevention of illnesses and as a treatment for medical and veterinary purposes, or as equipment normally intended to alleviate or treat disability, for the exclusive personal use of disabled persons. Furthermore, several categories of goods covered by the reduced rate of VAT pursuant to the Polish provisions are unclear or formulated imprecisely, thereby making it impossible to determine which goods are in fact involved.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-227/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) — Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-227/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) - Incorrect transposition)
   (2009/C 6/09)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented initially by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, T. Nowakowski, and subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) — National legislation on telecommunications requiring, by way of a general legal provision, operators of public telecommunications networks to negotiate in good faith access contracts and providing that, if the parties do not reach an agreement, the regulatory authority may, at the request of one of the parties, adopt a decision which will replace the contract
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-380/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Directive 2003/33/EC — Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products — Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 — Choice of legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 152 EC — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 December 2006 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-380/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/33/EC - Advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products - Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 - Choice of legal basis - Articles 95 EC and 152 EC - Principle of proportionality)
   (2006/C 331/01)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski, acting as Agents, and J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea and M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and E. Bygglin, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16) — Legal basis (Article 95 EC) — Attainment of the objective of the establishment of the internal market by prohibition of that activity — Scope of the prohibition on any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States for the purposes of protecting human health (Article 152 EC)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-302/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Interim relief — Competition — Request for information — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
   (Case T-302/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 282/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, T. Holzmüller and P. Pichler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-172/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/14

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission
   (Case T-172/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stahlwerk Bous GmbH (Bous, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-172/14 R Stahlwerk Bous v Commission is set aside.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-418/05 P: Appeal brought on  25 November 2005  by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of  8 September 2005  in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/12

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2005 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-418/05 P)
   (2006/C 48/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 November 2005 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa, represented by J.F. Vásquez Medina, lawyer.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               (1)

               Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 in its entirety on the ground that it infringes Community law (Article 173 of the EEC Treaty;

               (2)

               Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought at first instance relating to the merits of the case in order to comply with Community law;

               (3)

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Infringement of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty

         The appellants claim to have locus standi to bring appeals since they are clearly and entirely different from other olive oil producers by reason of the particular legal situation which affects them.
   All the appellants are owners of olive groves planted in 1998, and all had an olive production of 0 Kg of olives in the 1999 marketing year. Those circumstances are particular to them and distinguish them from the rest of the olive sector.


title: Case C-317/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/31

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-317/04)
   (2004/C 228/66)
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the European Parliament, represented by R. Passos and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 (1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament puts forward five pleas in support of its action.
   The first two pleas challenge the legal basis of the contested decision. First, the Parliament submits that recourse to Article 95 EC is not justified, having regard in particular to the Court's recent case-law on the interpretation of that provision; indeed, Article 95 cannot be the basis for Community power to conclude the agreement, since it relates to the processing of data excluded from the scope of Directive 95/46 on the protection of personal data. Secondly, the agreement entails amendment of that directive adopted under the procedure referred to in Article 251 EC, and could therefore be concluded only after the assent of the Parliament had been obtained.
   In its third plea, the Parliament takes the view that the agreement infringes fundamental rights, in particular the right to protection of personal data with regard to essential aspects of that right, and that it also constitutes an unjustifiable interference with private life, which is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
   The fourth plea concerns infringement of the principle of proportionality, in particular on account of the fact that the agreement provides for the transfer of an excessive amount of passenger data and those data are stored by the American authorities for too long.
   Finally, the Parliament also pleads the lack of a sufficient statement of reasons for a measure having such specific characteristics, and infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith provided for in Article 10 EC, having regard to the very unusual circumstances surrounding the adoption of the contested decision, which took place during the procedure before the Court of Justice for request for opinion 1/04 on the aspects which clearly posed questions of a legal nature.

      (1)  Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (OJ L 183 of 20.5.2004, p. 83)


title: Case C-126/11: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions and those suggestive of such reductions)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/12

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA
   (Case C-126/11) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions and those suggestive of such reductions)
   2012/C 73/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Inno NV

      Defendants: Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition on announcements of price reductions and those suggestive of such reductions in the period preceding the period of sales, in so far as that provision pursues objectives related to consumer protection.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-157/07: Action brought on 9 May 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/43

         Action brought on 9 May 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council
   (Case T-157/07)
   (2007/C 140/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the continuing decisions of the Council:

                           —

                           Not to review within six months or thereafter Council Decision 2006/379 in relation to the applicant;

                           —

                           to maintain until the date hereof and thereafter the applicant in a list of terrorist organisations established by Council Decision 2006/379 of 29 May 2006 with effect from the date of that decision notwithstanding the judgment of this Court in Case T-228/02 of 12 December 2006 and the Council's obligations under Article 233 EC.

               —

               To make such further order requiring the defendant to act in accordance with its legal obligations as may be appropriate.

               —

               To order the defendant to pay the applicant damages amounting to EUR 1 090 000 as set out in Annex 18 (and continuing) and interest thereon.

               —

               To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of certain letters from the Council and applies for damages as the Council did not carry out a review after six months of the list contained in Council Decision 2006/379 (1) of the persons, groups and entities to which Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, i.e. a freeze of funds and other financial resources, applies and as the Council maintained the applicant on the said list.
   According to the applicant the Council was under an obligation to carry out a review of the list of persons included in any list of terrorist organisations and to do so at a regular basis and at least once every six months. The applicant contends that the Council did not do so in relation to the inclusion of the applicant's name in the list of terrorist organisations.
   The applicant further submits that, following the judgement of the Court of First Instance in Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-0000, the Council was under an obligation to remove the applicant's name from the said list.

      (1)  Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).


title: Case C-335/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Claudia Norica Vijulan (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Domestic taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Pollution tax levied at the time of registration of motor vehicles)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/13

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Claudia Norica Vijulan
   (Case C-335/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Domestic taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied at the time of registration of motor vehicles)
   2011/C 311/18
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Defendant: Claudia Norica Vijulan

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Craiova — Registration of second-hand cars previously registered in other Member States — Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration in a given Member State — Compatibility of the national legislation with Art. 110 TFEU — Temporary exemption for vehicles having certain characteristics

      Operative part of the order

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration in that Member State, where that tax measure is designed to discourage putting second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States into circulation in that Member State, without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of comparable age and use on the domestic market.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 09.10.2010.