title: Case C-288/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss Local Authority

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/15
Does the standard fee applicable under                                          decisions to classify certain actions as ‘new aid’ within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(a)   Council Directive 85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985 in                     amendment, Article 87 EC) and to initiate the procedure
      conjunction with Council Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of                       under Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty)
      15 June 1988;                                                             if they consider that the measures in question are ‘existing
                                                                                aid’ falling to be treated under the different procedure
(b) Council Directive 85/73/EEC, as amended by Council                          provided for in Article 88(1) EC (ex Article 93(1) of the
      Directive 93/118/EEC (3) of 22 December 1993,                             EC Treaty).
      for the inspection of fresh meat intended for the domestic
      market in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/                  2.   The Italian Republic submits that the Commission mani-
      EEC (4) of 26 June 1964,                                                  festly erred in law in deciding what legal basis was
                                                                                appropriate for assessing the compatibility with Com-
(a)   as amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (5) of 11 December                     munity law of the national provisions at issue: it should
      1989;                                                                     have carried out its own exhaustive analysis exclusively
(b) as amended by Directive 91/497/EEC(6) of 29 July 1991,                      in relation to the provisions of the postal directive. That
                                                                                error as regards legal basis led in this case to a clear
                                                                                infringement of essential procedural requirements and
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (7) of                      misuse of powers, in that a procedure under Article 86(3)
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out                     EC was initiated, whereas any criticism alleging incorrect
inspections of fresh pigmeat for trichinae?                                     transposition of the postal directive should have been
                                                                                made under the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                       (ex Article 169 of the EC Treaty).
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15.
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.                             By taking that course of action, the Commission also
( 5) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                      infringed Article 86(3) EC, which was not applicable to
( 6) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.                                                      this case, and Article 226 EC, through wrongful failure to
( 7) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                      apply the latter.
                                                                                Finally, no reasons whatsoever were given for the Com-
                                                                                mission’s choosing a procedure different from that pre-
                                                                                scribed by Article 226 of the Treaty, although a statement
                                                                                of reasons was particularly necessary in view of the grave
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Italian Republic                          consequences of the choice made.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case C-286/00)
                           (2000/C 302/28)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 20 July 2000
by the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and
Francesca Quadri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
Adélaïde.                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                           tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                           Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Local Authority
—     annul the Commission’s letter of formal notice No SG
      (2000) — D/103687 dated 16 May 2000;
                                                                                (Case C-288/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/29)
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
1.    The Italian Republic observes that letters before action,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      despite being a preliminary to a possible decision under             European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
      Article 86 EC (ex Article 90 of the EC Treaty), nevertheless         Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
      constitute measures which have external repercussions                which was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2000, for
      and give rise immediately to adverse legal effects for their         a preliminary ruling in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH &
      addressees. Accordingly, it is clear that the Member                 Co. KG v Landrat (Administrative Head) of Neuss Local
      States and interested parties may challenge Commission               Authority on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
Does the standard fee applicable under Council Directive                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985, in conjunction with Council              di Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) (Supreme Court of
Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of 15 June 1988, for the inspection                Cassation, Third Civil Chamber) by interlocutory order
of fresh meat intended for the domestic market in accordance               of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of the Prefect of
with Council Directive 64/433/EEC (3) of 26 June 1964, as                  the Province of Cuneo against Silvano Carbone as sole
amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (4) of 11 December 1989,                   director of the private limited company ‘Expo Casa Manta
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (5) of                                                Srl’
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out a
bacteriological inspection required in an individual case?
                                                                                (Case C-296/2000)
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                                          (2000/C 302/31)
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 5) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                           Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) of 18 April 2000, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 1 August 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of the Province of Cuneo against Silvano
                                                                           Carbone as sole director of the private limited company ‘Expo
                                                                           Casa Manta Srl’ on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                  ‘Does a provision of national law which requires prior approval
hof, by judgment of that court of 27 April 2000, in the                    of cordless telephones coming from third countries for the
case of Davidoff & Company and Zino Davidoff SA v                          purposes of their being placed on the market only and not
                             GOFKID Ltd                                    also of their importation fall within the scope of Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 519/94 (1) of 7 March 1994 and Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) of 22 December 1994 on
                           (Case C-292/00)                                 common rules for imports from certain third countries?’
                           (2000/C 302/30)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 67 of 10 March 1994, p. 89.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 349 of 31 December 1994, p. 53.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Davidoff & Company SA and Zino Davidoff SA v
GOFKID Ltd on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 4(4)(a) and Article 5(2) of
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Adminis-
      relating to trade marks (1) to be interpreted (and where             trative Court for Lazio) by judgment of that court of
      appropriate so applied) as also entitling the Member                 31 May and 6 July 2000 in the case of M. Balestreri and
      States to retain rules protecting well-known marks in                          L. Maura against the Regione Lombardia
      cases where the later mark is used or to be used for goods
      or services identical with or similar to those in respect of                                 (Case C-303/00)
      which the earlier mark is registered?
2.    Are the grounds mentioned in Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of                                    (2000/C 302/32)
      the Trade Mark Directive (use which without due cause
      takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark) exhaus-         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      tive in regulating when it is permissible for provisions             strativo Regionale per il Lazio of 31 May and 6 July 2000,
      protecting well-known marks to be retained under                     received at the Court Registry on 8 August 2000, for a
      national law, or may those articles be supplemented by               preliminary ruling in the case of M. Balestreri and L. Maura
      national rules protecting well-known marks against later             against the Regione Lombardia on the following questions:
      signs which are used or to be used in respect of identical
      or similar goods or services?
                                                                           (1) Do the provisions contained in Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                          1992 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 534/92 of 9 March 1993 (2) permit derogation
                                                                                from the time-limits for the allocation of quotas, and thus
                                                                                for adjustments and levies, where it is found, when


title: Case T-268/10: Action brought on 10 June 2010 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/23

         Action brought on 10 June 2010 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-268/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrezieux Boutheon, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemical Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested act;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings;

               —

               take such other or further measure as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (“ECHA”) to identify acrylamide (CE no 201-173-7) (CAS Number 79-06-1) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (“REACH”), in accordance with Article 59 REACH.
   The applicants consider that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on an assessment of acrylamide that is scientifically and legally flawed since it relies on the evidence that is not sufficiently reliable and cogent. In the applicant’s opinion, ECHA committed a manifest error of appraisal in adopting the contested act, in breach of Articles 2(8) and 59 REACH and in breach of its duty to carefully and impartially examine the evidence.
   Further, the applicants claim that the contested act infringes a series of general principles of EU law such as principle of proportionality and of non-discrimination since it discriminates against acrylamide with regard to other comparable substances without any objective justification.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).


title: Case C-400/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 30 June 2017 — Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița v SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch
   (Case C-400/17)
   (2017/C 309/37)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Dolj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mihaela Iuliana Scripnic, Radu Constantin Scripnic, Alexandru Gheorghița, Vasilica Gheorghița

      Defendants: SC Bancpost SA, SC Bancpost SA — Dolj branch

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the ‘significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract’ may also be said to exist where, during the performance of the contract, whether it is performed at regular intervals or continuously, performance by the consumer has become excessively burdensome in comparison with the time when the contract was concluded because of significant variations in the exchange rate, which none of the parties could have foreseen?

               2.

               Must the plainness and intelligibility of a contractual term, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, be understood to mean that the term must provide only for the grounds for its conclusion in the contract and its method of operation, or must it also provide for all the possible consequences of the term as a result of which the price to be paid by the consumer may vary, such as for example, foreign exchange risk?

               3.

               When interpreting Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, may the expression ‘not be binding on the consumer’ be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations as a result of changes in the exchange rate, the national court may exempt the consumer from the obligation to bear the entire foreign exchange risk?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 25).


C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: Case C-106/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-106/06) (1)

   (2006/C 249/24)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.


title: Case T-70/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission (State Aid — Shipbuilding — Operating aid linked to contracts for ships — Application for extension of ship delivery limit under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 — Causal link between the exceptional event and the delay)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission
   (Case T-70/07) (1)

   (State Aid - Shipbuilding - Operating aid linked to contracts for ships - Application for extension of ship delivery limit under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 - Causal link between the exceptional event and the delay)
   (2009/C 6/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (Termoli, Italy) (represented by: B. Mammarella, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Conte and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commission's decision 2006/948/EC of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy plans to implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 53)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-274/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/19

         Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-274/06)
   (2006/C 212/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H.Støvlbæk and R.Vidal Puig, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the EC Treaty by maintaining in force measures limiting voting rights of public entities in Spanish undertakings in the energy sector, such as the measures provided for in Supplementary Provision no 27 to Law 55/1999 of 29 December on fiscal, administrative and social measures, as amended by Article 94 of Law 62/2003 of 30 December.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Supplementary Provision no 27 to Law 55/199 provides that where an entity controlled directly or indirectly by a public authority takes control of, or acquires a significant shareholding in, an undertaking in the energy sector, the Council of Ministers may within a period of two months decide ‘not to recognise’, or to impose certain conditions on, exercise of the corresponding political rights. The decision is to be based on certain criteria allegedly designed to safeguard the energy supply.
   The Commission considers that Supplementary Provision no 27 to Law 55/1999 is incompatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty for the following reasons:

               —

               where public entities take control of, or acquire a significant shareholding in, Spanish energy-sector undertakings, that is a ‘movement of capital’ within the meaning of Article 56 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               the restriction of political rights which the Spanish authorities may decide to impose in connection with such taking of control or acquisition of a significant shareholding constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, which is prohibited as a matter of principle by Article 56 EC; and

               —

               there is no justification in the Treaty for that restriction.

         Specifically, the Commission considers that Supplementary Provision no 27 to Law 55/1999 is not justified by the need to safeguard the energy supply for the following reasons:

               —

               the fact that the entities which take control or acquire a significant shareholding are controlled by a public authority does not pose any extra threat to the energy supply, and therefore cannot justify the introduction of restrictions on the free movement of capital solely in that case;

               —

               restricting voting rights is not an appropriate means of safeguarding the energy supply, there being other more suitable means of doing so;

               —

               even if restricting voting rights were an appropriate means of safeguarding the energy supply, the means at issue are disproportionate, inasmuch as the ‘non-recognition’ of the exercise of voting rights extends to all the activities and decisions of the company;

               —

               the power of the Council of Ministers to decide on the ‘recognition’ or the ‘non-recognition’ of the exercise of voting rights is not governed by criteria which are objective and sufficiently precise, amenable to effective review by the courts.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 July 1999 in Case T-143/99 R: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief - Urgency)

text:
C 366/28               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.12.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               office is in Piraeus, Greece, represented by Nikolaos Skandamis,
                           INSTANCE                                        of the Athens Bar, and Andreas Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of 16 July 1999                                   Stéphan Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume, L-1651 Luxembourg.
in Case T-143/99 R: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
                    European Communities
                                                                           — grant their application in its entirety;
           (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency)
                                                                           — declare that, by collaborating in acts of the European
                                                                               Union which are unlawful under international law, the
                        (1999/C 366/60)
                                                                               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                                                                               the European Communities have offended against the
                                                                               fundamental Community law principle of the protection
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                               of legitimate expectations in the field of the freedom
                                                                               to provide maritime transport services and maritime
In Case T-143/99 R: Hortiplant SAT, whose registered office is                 recreational services;
at Amposta, (Spain), represented by Concepción Fernández
Vicien, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the            — award the applicants USD 73 963 000 in damages under
Madrid Bar, Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem,                       Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288
1040 Brussels, against Commission of the European Com-                         EC.
munities (Agent: Juan Guerra Fernández) — application for
suspension of operation of Commission Decision C (1999)
537 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Community aid granted
— the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First                Pleas in law and main arguments
Instance made an order on 16 July 1999, the operative part of
which reads as follows:                                                    Admissibility of the action
1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.                        A. Legal interest in bringing proceedings
2. Costs are reserved.
                                                                           B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
                                                                           Merits of the action
                                                                           A. Unlawful measures and conduct
                                                                           1. Unlawful conduct of the Member States of the European
Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Royal Olympic
                                                                               Union which are also members of NATO
Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline
Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar Navigation
Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004                     2. Unlawful conduct of the European Union
SA, Elliniki Etairia Diipirotikon Grammon AE and Free-
wind Shipping Company against the Council of the                               a) Collaboration of the European Union in the armed
European Union and the Commission of the European                                   intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                          Communities                                               as autonomous conduct which is unlawful under
                                                                                international and European Union law
                        (Case T-201/99)
                                                                               b) Legal liability of the European Union resulting from
                                                                                the unlawful obligations assumed by its members by
                        (1999/C 366/61)                                             virtue of decisions of the North Atlantic Council
                                                                           3. Unlawful conduct of the European Community
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                               a) Conduct for which the European Community is vicari-
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                         ously liable
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 b) Autonomous unlawful conduct of the European Com-
on 9 September 1999 by Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine                         munity
Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navi-
gation Ltd, Solar Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea                           (i) Infringement of a superior rule of law for the
Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004 SA and Freewind Shipping Com-                                  protection of individuals
pany whose registered offices are in Monrovia, Liberia, and
Elliniki Etairia Diipirotikon Grammon AE, whose registered                          (ii) Sufficiently serious breach


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sala de lo Social, Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Murcia, by order of that court of 22 February 1996 in the case of Francisco Hernández Vidal, SA and Prudencia Gómez Pérez, María Gómez Pérez, and Contratas y Limpiezas, SL (Case C-127/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/21
      (v )  matters of which the defenders were aware but              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat du
            which they did not have opportunity to raise               Royaume de Belgique by judgment of that court of
            before the issuing court ?                                 29 March 1996 in the case of Inter-Environnement
                                                                                Wallonie ASBL against Région Wallonne
Powers ancillary to the exercise of Article 38 (1 ) power to                                     ( Case C- 1 29/96 )
sist or stay                                                                                ( 96/C 180/44 )
7. Whether the Article 37 ( 1 ) appellate court has power to
      make an order for a stay or sist of the enforcement              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
      proceedings conditional upon the judgment debtor                 Section d'Administration ( Council of "State, Administrative
      providing security or guarantee sufficient to protect the        Section ) of 29 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
      interests of the judgment creditor in the event that the
                                                                       Registry on 23 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
      judgment debtor is unsuccessful in its appeal against the
      judgment in the issuing State .
                                                                       case of Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL against Région
                                                                       Wallone on the following questions :
0 ) Article 38 ( 1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and        1 . Do Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty preclude
     Commercial Matters ( OJ No L 299 , 1972 , p . 32 ) as amended by        Member States from adopting a provision contrary to
     the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (*), as
     Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                   amended by Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March
     Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 1978 , p . 1          1991 ( 2 ), before the period for transposing the latter has
     and — as amended — p . 77 ).                                            expired ?
                                                                             Do those same Treaty Articles preclude Member States
                                                                             from adopting and bringing into force legislation which
                                                                             purports to transpose the abovementioned Directive but
                                                                             whose provisions appear to be contrary to the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sala de lo Social,                     requirements of that Directive ?
Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Murcia, by order of that court
of 22 February 1996 in the case of Francisco Hernández                 2 . Is a substance referred to in Annex I to Council Directive
Vidal, SA and Prudencia Gómez Pérez, María Gómez Pérez,                      91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
                  and Contratas y Limpiezas, SL                              75/442/EEC on waste and which directly or indirectly
                           Case C-127/96 )                                   forms an integral part of an industrial production
                           ( 96/C 180/43 )
                                                                             process to be considered 'waste' within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 1 ( a ) of that Directive ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       (') OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 39 .
European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social              ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 .
( Chamber for Social Matters ), Tribunal Superior de Justicia
( High Court of Justice ), Murcia, of 22 February 19 96 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1996 ,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisco Hernandez
Vidal, SA and Prudencia Gomez Pérez, Maria Gômez Pérez,
and Contratas y Limpiezas, SL on the following
questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo
( a ) whether the work of cleaning the premises of an                  Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division — Taxation
       undertaking whose main business is not cleaning, being          matters ) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending
       in this case the production of chewing gum and sweets,          before that court between Fazenda Publica and Solisnor —
       but having a permanent need for that secondary                                          Estaleiros Naveis SA
       activity, is a 'part of a business'.
                                                                                ( Case C- 1 3 0/96 )
( b ) and whether the term ' legal transfer' may cover the                                            96/C 180/45 )
       termination of a mercantile contract for the provision
       of cleaning services, after three years, with annual
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       renewals, at the end of the third year, by decision of the
       undertaking hiring the services; and whether, if that is        European Communities by an order of the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court)
       the case, it may depend on whether the undertaking
       hiring the services carries out the cleaning using its own
                                                                       ( Second Division — Taxation matters ) of 28 February 1996 ,
       workers or using workers under a new contractual                which was received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 ,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
       arrangement .
                                                                       that court between Fazenda Publica ( National Revenue
                                                                       Authority ) and Solisnor — Estaleiros Naveis SA, on the
                                                                       following question :


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-476/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankenthal): Felix Kapper (Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Residence requirement — Article 8(4) — Effects of withdrawal or cancellation of a previous driving licence — Recognition of a new driving licence issued by another Member State)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-476/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankenthal): Felix Kapper (1)

   (Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Residence requirement - Article 8(4) - Effects of withdrawal or cancellation of a previous driving licence - Recognition of a new driving licence issued by another Member State)
   (2004/C 118/29)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-476/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Amtsgericht (District Court) Frankenthal (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Felix Kapper - on the interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 150, p. 41) - the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The provisions of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, taken together, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that, according to the information available to the first Member State, the holder of the licence had, on the date on which it was issued, taken up normal residence in that Member State and not in the Member State in which the licence was issued.

               2.

               The provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Directive 91/439, taken together, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that its holder has, in the first Member State, been subject to a measure withdrawing or cancelling the driving licence issued by that Member State, where a temporary ban on obtaining a new licence in that State, with which that measure is coupled, has expired before the date of issue of the driving licence issued by the other Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002


title: Case T-26/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-26/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/104)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case T-191/04: Action brought on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/20

         Action brought on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-191/04)
   (2004/C 201/43)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Kaase, lawyer.
   Tesco Stores Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 23 March 2004 in Case R 486/2003-1;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               MIP METRO Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

               Community trade mark sought:

               The figurative mark ‘METRO’ in relation to goods which are not the issue in these proceedings (application No 779116)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Tesco Stores Limited

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word mark ‘METRO’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant submits that the time an earlier right as basis for an opposition has to be in force and to be proved to have this status, should be the time of the decision by the Opposition Division, or, alternatively, when the time-limit to provide further evidence expires. In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation of the parameters of the proceedings, enshrined in Article 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) and Rules 16 and 20 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (2). According to the applicant, Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation 40/94 does not indicate that the validity of the earlier mark is only required at the time of filling an opposition.

      (1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-203/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Henning Veedfald v Århus Amtskommune (Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Exemption from liability — Conditions)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 200/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          2.    Article 7(c) of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
      administrative provisions necessary for the full transposition              that the exemption from liability where an activity has no
      into national law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive               economic or business purpose does not extend to the case of a
      93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer                       defective product which has been manufactured and used in the
      contracts, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil              course of a specific medical service which is financed entirely
      its obligations under that Directive;                                       from public funds and for which the patient is not required to
                                                                                pay any consideration.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                            3.    Article 9 of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that, save for non-material damage whose reparation is
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                governed solely by national law and the exclusions detailed in
                                                                                that article as regards damage to an item of property, a Member
                                                                                State may not restrict the types of material damage, resulting
                                                                                from death or from personal injury, or from damage to or
                                                                                destruction of an item of property, which are to be made good.
                                                                            4.    The national court is required, under Directive 85/374, to
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          examine under which head the circumstances of the case are to
                                                                                be categorised, namely whether the case concerns damage
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                       covered either by point (a) or by point (b) of the first paragraph
                                                                                of Article 9 or non-material damage which may possibly be
                                                                                covered by national law. The national court may, however, not
                            of 10 May 2001                                        decline to award any damages at all under the Directive on the
                                                                                ground that, where the other conditions of liability are fulfilled,
in Case C-203/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         the damage incurred is not such as to fall under any of the
the Højesteret): Henning Veedfald v Århus Amtskommu-                              foregoing heads.
                                  ne (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liab-
ility for defective products — Exemption from liability —
                               Conditions)
                            (2001/C 200/23)
                     (Language of the case: Danish)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
In Case C-203/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret                      in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a
(Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo
proceedings pending before that court between Henning                       regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo
Veedfald and Århus Amtskommune — on the interpretation                      Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior
of Article 7(a) and (c) and points (a) and (b) of the first                 Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera
paragraph of Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of                         Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (1)
25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning               (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting auth-
liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the                            orities — Body governed by public law)
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           (2001/C 200/24)
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
      1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States concerning             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      liability for defective products is to be interpreted as meaning                           in the European Court Reports)
      that a defective product is put into circulation when it is used
      during the provision of a specific medical service, consisting in     In Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99: reference to the
      preparing a human organ for transplantation, and the damage           Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo
      caused to the organ results from that preparatory treatment.          regionale (Regional Administrative Court) per la Lombardia


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Nijmegen by judgments of that court of 8 May 1998 in the cases of Pavel W. Pavlov (Case C-180/98), Dirk Boetie van der Schaaf (Case C-181/98), Marinus Anthony Pieter Kooyman (Case C-182/98), Evert Wilhelm Geert Weber (Case C-183/98) and Rob Slappendel (Case C-184/98) against Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten (Case C-180/98 to C-184/98)

text:
4.7.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/27
Action brought on 14 May 1998 by the Commission of                    Integration, against Fatna Mesbah on the following
  the European Communities against the French Republic                questions:
                        (Case C-178/98)
                                                                      1. Can a member of the family of a worker, who was
                         (98/C 209/54)
                                                                           originally Moroccan but subsequently acquired
                                                                           Belgian nationality, still rely on Article 41(1) of the
                                                                           Cooperation Agreement between the European
An action against the French Republic was brought before                   Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on
14 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                              behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal                         (EEC) No 2211/78 (1) of 26 September 1978 and on
Adviser, and Olivier Coustert-Castera, official seconded to                the principle of non-discrimination with regard to
the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for                   Moroccan workers' and members of their family'
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                  living with them, which is contained therein?
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      2. What degree of relationship Ð vertical and/or
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                horizontal Ð is covered by the term family',
                                                                           contained in Article 41(1) of the EEC-Morocco
                                                                           Agreement, and can that term also be applied to
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate                    persons of Moroccan nationality who are related only
     all the measures necessary to comply with Council                     by marriage?
     Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries
     and accumulators containing certain dangerous
                                                                      (1) OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1.
     substances (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that directive,
2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht
                                                                      te Nijmegen by judgments of that court of 8 May 1998 in
                                                                      the cases of Pavel W. Pavlov (Case C-180/98), Dirk Boetie
The fact that the laws, regulations and administrative                van der Schaaf (Case C-181/98), Marinus Anthony Pieter
provisions necessary to comply more generally with                    Kooyman (Case C-182/98), Evert Wilhelm Geert Weber
Directive 91/158/EEC have not yet been adopted by                     (Case C-183/98) and Rob Slappendel (Case C-184/98)
France (2) is irrelevant in order to find that it has failed to           against Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten
fulfil its specific obligations under Article 6 of the                                 (Case C-180/98 to C-184/98)
directive with regard to the drawing up of the
programmes referred to therein.                                                               (98/C 209/56)
(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
(2) See Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96, OJ C            212,      the European Communities by judgments of the
    12.7.1997, p. 6.
                                                                      Kantongerecht te Nijmegen (Cantonal Court, Nijmegen)
                                                                      of 8 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 15 May
                                                                      1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Pavel W.
                                                                      Pavlov (Case C-180/98), Dirk Boetie van der Schaaf (Case
                                                                      C-181/98), Marinus Anthony Pieter Kooyman (Case
                                                                      C-182/98), Evert Wilhelm Geert Weber (Case C-183/98)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail,            and Rob Slappendel (Case C-184/98) against Stichting
Brussels (Sixth Chamber) by judgment of that court of                 Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten on the following
11 May 1998 in the case of Belgian State, in the person of            questions:
the Secretary of State for Social Integration, against Fatna
                            Mesbah                                    1. In the light of the Wet betreffende verplichte
                        (Case C-179/98)                                    deelneming in een beroepspensioenregeling (Law on
                                                                           compulsory affiliation to an occupational pension
                         (98/C 209/55)                                     scheme, hereinafter the WVD'), is an occupational
                                                                           pension scheme which, pursuant to and in accordance
                                                                           with the WVD, makes membership compulsory for all,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     or one or more specified groups of, persons belonging
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                            to a profession, entailing the legal consequences . . .
Travail (Higher Labour Court), Brussels (Sixth Chamber)                    attendant upon the Law, to be regarded as an
of 11 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 15 May                   undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85, 86 or
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Belgian State,               90 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
in the person of the Secretary of State for Social                         Community?
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
2. If so, is the fact of making membership of the                    above provisions require Member States to adapt their
    occupational pension scheme for medical specialists              legislation to comply with Community directives within
    . . . compulsory a measure adopted by a Member State             the periods prescribed therein. Although the period
    which nullifies the useful effect of the competition             prescribed in Article 3 of Directive 92/101/EEC expired on
    rules applicable to undertakings, or is this the case            1 January 1994, the Hellenic Republic had not adopted
    only under certain conditions, and if so, under which?           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                     necessary to comply with that directive.
3. If the last question must be answered in the negative,
                                                                     (1) OJ L 347, 28.11.1992, p. 64.
    can      other    circumstances     render     compulsory
    membership incompatible with Article 90 of the
    Treaty, and if so, which?
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 4.a Vara Criminal
                                                                     do Círculo do Porto by decision of that court of 21 April
                                                                     1998 in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Action brought on 15 May 1998 by the Commission of                             AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-186/98)
                       (Case C-185/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/58)
                         (98/C 209/57)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by decision of the 4.a Vara
before the Court of Justice on 15 May 1998 by the                    Criminal do Círculo do Porto (Fourth Criminal Chamber,
Commission of the European Communities, represented                  Oporto Circuit) of 21 April 1998, which was received at
by M. Patakia, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an            the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for a preliminary
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                     AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos on the following
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                   questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Ð did the Community legislation in force at the material
                                                                         time treat the conduct with which the defendants are
                                                                         charged as criminal?
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period
      prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council                        and
      Directive 92/101/EEC of 23 November 1992
      amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the formation of               Ð does a Member State have the power to impose
      public limited liability companies and the                         criminal sanctions on conduct which causes only
      maintenance and alteration of their capital (1), the               economic damage to the Community in respect of
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             which Community law only provides for civil
      under the EC Treaty and that directive,                            sanctions?
(2) in the alternative, declare that, by failing to
      communicate to the Commission the measures
      adopted in order to transpose the said directive into
      national law, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive,                  Removal from the register of C-21/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 209/59)
(3) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-21/95 (reference for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,           Regionale del Lazio): Toscana TV and Others v. Ministero
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       delle Poste e Telcomunicazioni.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under
Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
action taken by the institutions of the Community. The


title: Case C-150/07: Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/17

         Action brought on 15 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-150/07)
   (2007/C 117/27)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by refusing to pay to the Commission default interest owed on the late payment of own resources in connection with the ATA system, and by not amending its national practice in respect of the entry in the accounts of own resources under that system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 1552/89 (1);

               —

               An order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 21 February 1992, the date of the unofficial establishment of the amounts of the customs debts at issue, those amounts had not been formally challenged by either the debtors or the guaranteeing association, and payment of those debts was guaranteed in accordance with Article 6(1) of the ATA Convention. As a result, the conditions for entering the established entitlements in the A accounts were satisfied.
   The amounts in question ought to have been entered in the A accounts and made available to the Community budget within the periods prescribed by Regulation No 1552/89. In so far as the Portuguese authorities entered those amounts late in the account referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1552/89, default interest is owed, calculated in accordance with Article 11 of that regulation and, as from 31 May 2000, with Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000 (2). Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities ought to have adapted their national practice to conform to the Community legislation when dealing with any similar cases under the ATA Convention.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-119/14: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Henricus Cornelis Maria Niessen, Angelique Francisca Niessen Steeghs, Melissa Alexandra Johanna Niessen, Kenneth Gerardus Henricus Niessen v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Henricus Cornelis Maria Niessen, Angelique Francisca Niessen Steeghs, Melissa Alexandra Johanna Niessen, Kenneth Gerardus Henricus Niessen v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-119/14) (1)

   2014/C 409/46
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Action brought on 30 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-85/98)

text:
C 184/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13.6.98
Action brought on 27 March 1998 by the Commission                   on 30 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                  Communities, represented by Dimitrios Goulousis, Legal
                           Republic                                 Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                        (Case C-84/98)                              office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (98/C 184/07)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought               The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of First Instance on 27 March 1998 by
the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by António Caeiro, Principal Legal Adviser,             Ð declare that, by retaining in force Article 2(5) of
acting as Agent, with an address for service in                          Presidential Decree 278/1992 and thereby requiring
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a                   that on the issue of a residence permit to a member of
member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                   the family of a national of a Member State who is not
                                                                         himself a national of a Member State fees be paid of a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              total amount higher than that required for the issue of
                                                                         an identity card to a Greek national, the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Ð declare that, by failing to denounce or adjust the
                                                                         Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    agreement with Yugoslavia so as to provide for fair,
                                                                         the abolition of restrictions on movement and
    free and non-discriminatory access by Community
                                                                         residence within the Community for workers of
    nationals to the cargo-shares due to Portugal, such
                                                                         Member States and their families (1), Council Directive
    access being prescribed in Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of
    No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
                                                                         restrictions on movement and residence within the
    principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                         Community for nationals of Member States with
    transport between Member States and between
                                                                         regard to establishment and the provision of
    Member States and third countries, the Portuguese
                                                                         services (2), Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                         1990 on the right of residence (3), Council Directive
    Articles 3 and 4 of that regulation and under the EC
                                                                         90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence
    Treaty;
                                                                         for employees and self-employed persons who have
                                                                         ceased their occupational activity (4) and Council
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                        Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right
                                                                         of residence for students (5);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The agreement with Yugoslavia mentioned in the                      Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
application reserves the carriage of goods between the
parties to vessels flying the flag of one of the parties or to
vessels operated by persons or undertakings having the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
nationality of one of the parties. Thus, vessels operated by
nationals of other Member States are excluded from the
trade covered by the agreement. The Commission
considers that this constitutes cargo-sharing arrangements          The Commission has brought an action pursuant to the
which are subject to the provisions and obligations laid            second paragraph of Article 169 of the EC Treaty,
down in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 and, in particular,             challenging a provision of Greek law which lays down
in Article 4(1) of that regulation. Those arrangements              that, while a member of the family of a national of a
should therefore be altered to bring them into line with            Member State of the European Community settled in
the regulation.                                                     Greece who is not himself a national of a Member State is
                                                                    granted a residence document, it is, however, subject to
                                                                    the fees laid down for the grant of a residence permit to
(1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                    nationals of non-Member countries. According to the
                                                                    Commission, which contends that Article 9(1) of Directive
                                                                    68/360/EEC should be interpreted broadly, the fees paid
                                                                    must not exceed those charged for the issue of an identity
                                                                    card to a Greek national.
Action brought on 30 March 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic             (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), 19.10.1968, p. 485.
                                                                    (2 ) OJ L 172 of 28.6.1973, p. 14.
                        (Case C-85/98)                              (3 ) OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 26.
                                                                    (4 ) OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 28.
                         (98/C 184/08)
                                                                    (5 ) OJ L 317 of 18.12.1993, p. 59.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-379/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Würzburg, Richard Dahms GmbH v Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV (Wine sector products — Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 — Article 21 — Direct effect — Wine and sparkling wine competitions — Competition entry fee)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 13 October 2005
   in Case C-379/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Würzburg, Richard Dahms GmbH v Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV (1)

   (Wine sector products - Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 - Article 21 - Direct effect - Wine and sparkling wine competitions - Competition entry fee)
   (2005/C 296/13)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-379/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Würzburg (Germany), made by decision of 23 August 2004, received at the Court on 3 September 2004, in the proceedings between Richard Dahms GmbH and Fränkischer Weinbauverband eV, — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products must be interpreted as meaning that entrants or potential entrants to a wine competition cannot rely on that provision to contest the conditions for the organisation of that competition and, in particular, the rules determining the entry fees.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case F-71/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Caminiti v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Action manifestly unfounded — Entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 — Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations — Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Classification — Multiplication factor — Promotion points)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — Caminiti v Commission
   (Case F-71/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Action manifestly unfounded - Entry into force of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations - Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Classification - Multiplication factor - Promotion points)
   2012/C 138/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Caminiti (Tubize, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the defendant’s decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 and, consequently, the reinstatement of the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1,071151.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Caminiti is ordered to refund to the Civil Service Tribunal the sum of EUR 500 under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure.

               3.

               Mr Caminiti shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009, p. 17.


title: Case T-613/15: Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/31

         Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)
   (Case T-613/15)
   (2016/C 007/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Sfiri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Contract Notice No 2015/S 162-295659 of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, which was published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, S 162 of 22 August 2015;

               —

               order Frontex to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to enter into the contract announced, harm which they assess ex aequo et bono at EUR 85 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or whatever other amount the Court decides;

               —

               order the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay all the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants submit that the contested notice must be annulled under Article 263 TFEU because it is contrary to the principle of proportionality and of non-discrimination which governs public procurement and infringes Article 102(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (the Financial Regulation) (1) and Articles 146(1) and 147 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. (2)

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case T-311/09 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 20 May 2009 in Case F-73/08, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/20

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 20 May 2009 in Case F-73/08, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-311/09 P)
   2009/C 233/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   In any event:

               —

               Annul the judgment under appeal in its entirety.

               —

               Declare that the action which gave rise to the judgment under appeal is perfectly admissible.

         Principal claim:

               —

               Annul the respondent’s decision refusing the application dated 27 June 2007.

               —

               Annul the respondent’s decision rejecting the application dated 29 June 2007.

               —

               Annul the respondent decision rejecting the application dated 30 June 2007.

               —

               Annul the respondent’s decision rejecting the application dated 2 July 2007.

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the memorandum dated 29 April 2008 signed by Mr Bernhard Jansen.

               —

               On the basis set out in the application initiating the proceedings, order that the EC pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 747,29 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court of First Instance may consider appropriate, together with interest on that sum with effect from 7 November 2007 at the rate of 10 % per annum with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Court of First Instance may consider appropriate.

               —

               Order the EC to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, charges and fees incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance and in these appeal proceedings.

         In the alternative:

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 20 May 2009 in Case F-73/08. That order dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded an action seeking annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject the appellant’s requests for reimbursement of certain medical expenses at the normal rate and at the ‘additional’ rate, namely 100 %.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges infringement of the principle that reasons must be given for a Community decision, misapplication of the concept of a challengeable act and breach of the principle of res judicata, the principle of the division of powers and of the case-law relating the effects of the annulment by the Community judicature of a decision adopted by a Community institution.
   The appellant also alleges infringement of the concepts of lis pendens and of a confirmatory decision and of the provisions governing rulings on costs in legal proceedings.


title: Case C-3/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank Utrecht, Sector kanton, Locatie Utrecht, by order of that Court of 10 December 2003 in the case of POSEIDON CHARTERING B.V. against 1. V.O.F. Marianne Zeeschip, 2. ALBERT MOOĲ, 3. SJOERDTJE SĲSWERDA, 4. GERRIT DANIEL SCHRAM

text:
6.3.2004                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 59/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
                                                                            Utrecht, Sector kanton, Locatie Utrecht, by order of that
                                                                            Court of 10 December 2003 in the case of POSEIDON
                                                                            CHARTERING B.V. against 1. V.O.F. Marianne Zeeschip,
The present appeal is based on the following two grounds of                 2. ALBERT MOOIJ, 3. SJOERDTJE SIJSWERDA, 4. GER-
law:                                                                                RIT DANIEL SCHRAM
(i)   Manifest error in that the judgment of the Court of First                                      (Case C-3/04)
      Instance states that the Appellant’s principal objection
      relates to the validity of the Commission’s finding that
      the Compensatory levy is compatible with the common                                           (2004/C 59/25)
      market organisation for cotton and therefore the original
      Application of the Appellant is inadmissible — should
      this finding be upheld it would inevitably result in an
      infringement of the rights to access to justice of the
      Appellant.                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Rechtbank Utrecht,
                                                                            Sector kanton, Locatie Utrecht, of 10 December 2003, received
      This is because the Appellant did not have any other                  at the Court Registry on 5 January 2004, for a preliminary
      option but to challenge the deficient finding of the                  ruling in the case of POSEIDON CHARTERING B.V. against 1.
      operative part of Article 1 of the contested Decision,                V.O.F. Marianne Zeeschip, 2. ALBERT MOOIJ, 3. SJOERDTJE
      which implicitly refers to the last paragraph of Section IV           SIJSWERDA, 4. GERRIT DANIEL SCHRAM on the following
      of the contested Decision which states that the Com-                  questions:
      pensatory levy of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 is
      ‘consonant with the market organisation’. The contested
                                                                            1.   Is a self-employed intermediary, who has arranged (not
      Decision is deficient in that the Commission failed to
                                                                                several but) one contract (a charter for a ship) which is
      fulfil its duty to analyse the activities of the Greek Cotton
                                                                                renewed every year and pursuant to which, in respect of
      Board financed by the compensatory levy of Article 30(1)
                                                                                the renewal of the charter, the annual freight negotiations
      of Law 2040/92 under the EC State aid rules; and
                                                                                (except, during the period from 1994 to 2000, in 1999)
                                                                                are conducted between the owner of the ship and a third
                                                                                party and the outcome of those negotiations is recorded
(ii) The judgment of the Court of First Instance is erroneous                    by the intermediary in an addendum, to be regarded as a
      in law and contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice                commercial agent within the meaning of Council Direc-
      of the European Communities.                                               tive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
                                                                                nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                                employed commercial agents?
      The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of
      First Instance is contrary to the case-law of the Court of            2.   Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
      Justice of the European Communities in that the judgment                   that the intermediary works for two principals because
      states that (i) ‘it is obvious’ that the Compensatory levy of              the intermediary already knew the third party between
      Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 neither constitutes State                     1987 and 1994 and transacted business in respect of the
      aid nor contains a State aid component — the reason                        abovementioned charter for the same ship? If an agency
      being that in the Court of First Instance’s opinion the                    contract must be held to exist, does it make any
      Compensatory levy of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 is                       difference to the answer to Question 1 that an indemnity
      ‘merely one of two State aid financing methods granted                     (commission) of 2,5 % of the charter has been paid over
      by the Greek Cotton Board’; and (ii) that it is erroneous                  many years and/or that Article 7(1) of the Directive
      to equate the Compensatory levy of Article 30(1) of Law                    refers to ‘commercial transactions concluded’ and to the
      2040/92 ‘with State aid’. This is because the Compensa-                    existence of an entitlement to (the) commission ‘where
      tory levy of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 constitutes                      the transaction is concluded with a third party whom he
      State aid within the meaning of the Enirisorse and Van                     has previously acquired as a customer for transactions of
      Calster case-law.                                                          the same kind’?
                                                                            3.   Does is make any difference to the answer to Question 1
                                                                                that Article 17 of the Directive refers to ‘customers’
(1) OJ C 259, 09.09.2000, p. 24.                                                 instead of customer?
(2) OJ 2000, L 63, p. 27.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17.