title: Case C-465/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 2 August 2017 — Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S v Stadt Solingen
   (Case C-465/17)
   (2017/C 330/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Falck Rettungsdienste GmbH, Falck A/S

      Defendant: Stadt Solingen

      Other parties to the proceedings: Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Regionalverband Bergisch Land e.V., Malteser Hilfsdienst e.V., Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Solingen e.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the care and treatment of emergency patients in an ambulance by a medical technician/paramedic and the care and treatment of patients in a patient transport ambulance by a paramedic/medical assistant constitute ‘civil defence, civil protection, and danger prevention services’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) which come under CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) codes 75252000-7 (Rescue services) and 85143000-3 (Ambulance services)?

               2.

               Can Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU be understood as meaning that ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ include, in particular, aid organisations that are recognised under national law as civil defence and civil protection organisations?

               3.

               Are ‘non-profit organisations or associations’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU those whose mission is fulfilled in the achievement of tasks in the public good, which do not operate with a view to making a profit and which reinvest any profits in order to realise the mission of the organisation?

               4.

               Is the transport of a patient in an ambulance while care is provided by a paramedic/medical assistant (so-called qualified patient transport) a ‘patient transport ambulance service’ within the meaning of Article 10(h) of Directive 2014/24/EU, which is not covered by the exception and to which Directive 2014/24/EU applies?

      (1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Case C-365/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — "Mad cow" disease)

text:
C 289/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.10.2001
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs of Case C-308/99                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      P;
4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs in both                                       of 12 July 2001
      actions.
                                                                           in Case C-189/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.                                                the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): H. Jippes,
                                                                           Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
                                                                           Bescherming van Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstre-
                                                                           ken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
                                                                           van Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en
                                                                                Visserij (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Pro-
                                                                           hibition of vaccination — Principle of proportionality —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                               Taking animal welfare into account)
                            of 12 July 2001                                                          (2001/C 289/07)
in Case C-365/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)                                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — ‘Mad cow’                                           in the European Court Reports)
                                disease)
                           (2001/C 289/06)                                 In Case C-189/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
                                                                           (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       pending before that court between H. Jippes, Afdeling Gronin-
                                                                           gen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Dieren and Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and Minister van
                                                                           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on the interpretation
                                                                           of the validity of Article 13 of Council Directive 85/511/EEC
In Case C-365/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes                of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for
and M.J. Abecassis, assisted by C. Aguiar, T. Ferreira de                  the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11),
Lima and G. van der Wal) v Commission of the European                      as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990
Communities — application for annulment of Commission                      (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 13), and of Commission Decision
Decision 99/517/EC of 28 July 1999 amending Decision                       2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the conditions
98/653/EC concerning emergency measures made necessary                     for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in
by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in                   the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of Directive
Portugal (OJ 1999 L 197, p. 45), in so far as it extends until             85/511/EEC (OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21), as amended by Commission
1 February 2000 the restriction on exports prescribed by                   Decision 2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19)
Article 4 of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November                  — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
1998 concerning emergency measures made necessary by the                   C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents
occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal                 of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, L Sevón (Rapporteur),
(OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and S. von              H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal            a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it has ruled:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
12 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 13 of Council
                                                                                Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.                      Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease,
                                                                                as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June
                                                                                1990.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                           2.    Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any
                                                                                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 March 2002 in Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Admissibility of the action in the main proceedings)

text:
C 156/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
— application for annulment of Commission Decision                        1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
C (2001) 1380 of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial
assistance previously granted to the applicant by the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section),              2.    The applicants shall pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President, N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 21 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the
      defendant.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        of 11 March 2002
                                                                          (Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Time-limit for
in Case T-3/02: Schlüsselverlag J. S. Moser GmbH and                      bringing proceedings — Admissibility of the action in the
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                              main proceedings)
(Control of concentrations — Action for a declaration of
failure to act — Definition of a position — Manifest                                                (2002/C 156/52)
                           inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2002/C 156/51)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni, residing at Serdiana
                                                                          (Italy), and 77 others, represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli,
In Case T-3/02, Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, established              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
in Innsbruck (Austria), J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co. KG,                   D. Triantafyllou) — application for suspension of operation of
established in Linz (Austria), Styria Medien AG, established              Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid
in Graz (Austria), Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH,                granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agriculture
established in Bregenz (Austria), Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger                  sector (OJ 1997 L 248, p. 27) — the President of the Court of
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH, established in Schwarz-                First Instance made an order on 18 March 2002, the operative
ach (Austria), ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, established         part of which is as follows:
in Vienna (Austria), ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesell-
schaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Salzburg (Austria),
represented by M. Krüger, lawyer, Linz, v Commission of the               1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner): Application for a
declaration that, by unlawfully failing to adopt a decision on
the compatibility of a concentration with the common market,              2.    The costs are reserved.
the defendant has failed to act, the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts
and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on ,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Eerste Nederlandse Cementindustrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-31/95)

text:
No C 101/ 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 4 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 99/63 , in that the
                                                                      Commission did not allow it to put forward its views on the
                                                                      fundamental differences between the nature and reasoning
The applicant asserts, first of all, that the Commission              of the objections made against it and the Commission's
seriously infringed its rights to a fair hearing, in that, first, it  views as set out in the statement of objections .
allowed it only the most limited access to the file relating to
the proceeding, in complete contravention of the case-law of
the Court of First Instance and of its legitimate expectations,       As regards the fine, the applicant maintains that the
and, second, it denied the applicant access to the                    Commission, which has not shown the existence of the
exculpatory material contained in the sections relating to            alleged ' Cembureau agreement', was not entitled to impose
'national' objections, thereby preventing it from obtaining           on it a fine of ECU 100 000 in respect of that infringement.
information arising from the withdrawal of the said                   It also considers that the Commission infringed its right to a
objections .                                                          fair hearing by failing to warn it of its intention to impose a
                                                                      fine on it. Lastly, the applicant considers that the
                                                                      Commission has not legally justified the criteria on which it
                                                                      based its calculation of the duration of the infringement for
The applicant further considers that the contested decision           the purposes of determining the amount of the fine.
is vitiated by errors of fact and of law. The Commission:
— has failed to show that the applicant and its members
     were ever informed of the conclusion of the alleged
     ' Cembureau agreement' and, a fortiori, that the
     applicant and its members authorized or approved the             Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Eerste Nederlandse
     applicant's participation in the said agreement,                 Cementindustrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— has failed to demonstrate the existence of the alleged                                        (Case T-31/95 )
     'Cembureau agreement' on non-transhipment to home                                           ( 95/C 101 /29 )
     markets and regulation of trade between member
     countries,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
— has failed to characterize in legal terms the objection             An action against the Commission of the European
     concerning the alleged rules designed to ensure fair             Communities was brought before the Court of First
     competition, and has not incorporated it as such in the          Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
     operative part of the decision,                                  1995 by Eerste Nederlandse Cementindustrie ( ENCI) NV,
                                                                      established at 's-Hertogenbosch, represented by B. W.
                                                                      Biesheuvel and T. M. Snoep, of the Hague Bar, with an
— has not indicated fully in what way the price information           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
     exchanged at the meetings of Head Delegates, the                 Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
     indefinite and innocuous nature of which is apparent
     from all the available documents, could have been such
     as to strengthen the alleged ' Cembureau agreement' or           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     permit the alleged establishment of rules governing 'fair
     or healthy or correct' competition,                              A.      primarily:
                                                                         (i ) annul the (contested parts of the ) decision of the
— has based its assessment of the exchange of statistical                     Commission of 30 November 1994 relating to a
     data regarding Benelux on erroneous findings,                            proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
                                                                              IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (*) or at least annul
                                                                              it in relation to ENCI, on the ground of infringement
— has      not   demonstrated      the    connection    between
                                                                              of essential procedural requirements;
     competitive conduct within the Community and
     cooperation in large-scale exports within the ECEC .
                                                                      B.      alternatively:
                                                                       ( ii ) annul the (contested parts of the ) decision, or at least
The applicant also pleads a lack of reasoning in the                          annul it in relation to ENCI, on the ground that it
contested decision, in that the Commission has failed to                      infringes the law, including Article 85 of the EC
mention the reasons which prompted it to withdraw the                         Treaty, Regulation No 17/62 and/or general legal
'national' objections set out in the statement of                             principles;
objections.
                                                                      C.      in the further alternative:
It also pleads infringement of the procedural rules, and more         (iii) (considerably) reduce the fine imposed on the
particularly of Articles 19 ( 1 ) and Regulation No 17 and                    applicant;
 ---pagebreak--- 22. 4. 95           [IN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 101 / 13
D.    costs :                                                        Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Verenigung
                                                                     Nederlandse Cementindustrie against the Commission of
(iv) order the Commission to pay the costs of the action                                  the European Communities
      (including interest on the wrongly paid fine ).                                           (Case T-32/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /30 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
    The Commission has infringed the basic rule of                   Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
    (procedural ) competition law, whereby, in a proceeding          1995 by Verenigung Nederlandse Cementindustrie,
    under Article 85 of the EC Treaty, the parties concerned         established at 's-Hertogenbosch, represented by P. A.
    must be given a prior opportunity to comment on the              Wackie Eysten, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
    objections which the Commission intends to make                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue
    against them, and, more generally, the right to a fair           Guillaume .
    hearing, including the rule laid down by Article 6 of the
    European Convention for the Protection of Human
    Rights ( ECHR). In particular, it has infringed the rights       The applicant claims that the Court should :
    of the defence in that (a ) it allowed the applicant only
    limited access to an incomplete file; ( b ) the objections       A.      primarily:
    communicated by it to the applicant were incomplete
    and fragmentary; (c ) it called upon the applicant to              (i ) annul the (contested parts of the ) Decision of the
    submit a ' defence' against incomplete and fragmentary                   Commission of 30 November 1994 relating to a
    objections; ( d ) it included in the decision fresh                      proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (cases
    accusations against the applicant which were not                         IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (*), or at least annul
    levelled as such against the applicant in the statement of               it in relation to VNC, on the ground of infringement of
    objections; and (e ) it imposed on the applicant a                       essential procedural requirements;
    disproportionate fine, without making adequately clear
    in the statement of reasons for the decision which               B.      alternatively:
    specific facts were alleged against it, or at any rate
    imposed a fine which was out of all proportion to the             (ii ) annul the (contested parts of the ) Decision, or at least
    Commission's own finding that the applicant did not                      annul it in relation to VNC, on the ground that it
    participate in agreements implementing the alleged                       infringes the law, including Article 85 of the EC
    Cembureau agreement.                                                     Treaty, Regulation No 17/62 and general legal
                                                                             principles;
— Infringement of one or more higher-ranking rules of law,           C.      in tbe further alternative:
    including Articles 85 ( 1 ) and 190 of the EC Treaty,
    Regulation No 17/62 and/or general legal principles:             (iii ) (considerably) reduce the fine imposed on VNC;
                                                                             and
    The Commission has failed to show that the applicant
    acted contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty. More              D.      in any event:
    particularly, it has not demonstrated that the applicant
    'participated' in any agreement between Cembureau                (iv) order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
    members and in any concerted practice between ECEC                       (including interest on the wrongly paid fine ).
    members. That allegation is also incomprehensible —
    and, thus expressed, contrary to Article 190 of the EC           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Treaty — in the light of the finding that the applicant did
    not participate in agreements implementing the alleged           — Infringement of essential procedural requirements
    Cembureau agreement.
                                                                           The Commission has infringed the basic rule of
    The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant was                    (procedural ) competition law, whereby, in a proceeding
    incorrectly determined, or at any rate incompatible with               under Article 85 of the Treaty, the parties concerned
    the law and/or general legal principles, including the                 must be given a prior opportunity to comment on the
    principle of proportionality, and is, at the very least,               objections which the Commission is minded to make
    inadequately reasoned.                                                 against them, and, more generally, the right to a fair
                                                                           hearing, including the rule laid down by Article 6 of the
                                                                           European Convention for the Protection of Human
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                  Rights ( ECHR). In particular, it has infringed the rights
                                                                           of the defence, in that ( a ) it allowed the applicant only
                                                                           limited access to an incomplete and impenetrable file; ( b )
                                                                           the objections communicated by it to the applicant were


title: Case T-638/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure of the EMA — Provision of software application support services — Rejection of a tender — Award criteria — Statement of reasons — Observance of the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications — Establishment of subheadings for the award criteria — Access to documents)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA
   (Case T-638/11) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure of the EMA - Provision of software application support services - Rejection of a tender - Award criteria - Statement of reasons - Observance of the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications - Establishment of subheadings for the award criteria - Access to documents)
   2013/C 352/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by V. Salvatore and subsequently by T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of, first, decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by the applicants in tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected and, second, annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants’ confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls decision EMA/787935/2011 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 3 October 2011, by which the tender submitted by European Dynamics Belgium SA; European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics UK Ltd in connection with tender procedure EMA/2011/05/DV was rejected;

               2.

               Holds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the pleas seeking annulment of decision EMA/882467/2011 of the acting Executive Director of the EMA of 9 November 2011, by which the applicants’ confirmatory application for access to the tender procedure documents relating to the composition of the evaluation committee was rejected;

               3.

               Orders the EMA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-414/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2006 — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2006 — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn
   (Case C-414/06)
   (2006/C 326/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn
   Question referred
   Is it compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its profits, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State (here: Luxembourg) on the ground that, according to the applicable double taxation convention, the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in Germany?


title: Case T-332/06: Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/77

         Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
   (Case T-332/06)
   (2006/C 326/158)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy), (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibord, F. M. Salerno and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the Commission Decision of 19 July 2006 (1), in so far as it relates to the applicant and the electricity tariffs payable by the applicant at Portovesme and Fusina or, in the alternative, to annul the decision to the extent that it treats these tariffs as unlawful new aid;

               —

               to order the Commission to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for the annulment of Commission Decision of 19 July 2006 (hereinafter ‘the 2006 Decision’), which qualified electricity tariffs applicable to the applicant's aluminium plants located in Portovesme in Sardinia and Fusina in the Veneto region as unlawful new aid and initiated formal proceedings against these tariffs pursuant to Article 88(2)EC.
   The applicant submits that the 2006 decision is erroneous and unlawful in that it departs from the Commission's own previous decision holding that the tariffs in question do not constitute state aid and disregards the procedure that the Commission should follow in such a case. More specifically, the applicant raises three pleas in law:
   First, the applicant submits that by opening formal proceedings against the tariffs in question and by qualifying them as unlawful new aid the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed Article 88(2) because (i) there was no basis for finding that the tariffs provide an advantage resulting in state aid and (ii) the Commission did not conduct any meaningful assessment on whether the tariffs effectively provide such an advantage to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant puts forward that, as confirmed by ‘the 1996 Decision’, the tariffs correspond to the prices that one would expect a rational market operator to charge under normal market conditions and therefore do not create an advantage for the applicant resulting in aid. The 2006 Decision, by contrast, merely asserts that the tariffs create an advantage without conducting any such assessment. In so doing, the Commission allegedly ignored its own findings as set out in the previous decision and its own factual observations made in the present one, which confirm there is no such advantage. In addition, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed its obligation under Article 253EC to provide adequate reasoning.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission violated principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by effectively revoking ‘the 1996 Decision’ and qualifying the tariffs as new state aid in clear contradiction with its previous findings. In the applicant's view, the Commission's initial conclusions continue to hold as long as the considerations on which the Commission's original decision was based do not materially change.
   Third, the applicant claims the Commission infringed Article 88 EC and the procedural framework provided by this provision for existing aid, as well as Articles 1(b)(v) and 17-19 of Regulation (EC) 659/99 (2) and fundamental principles of EC law.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 214, p. 5.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, of 22 march 1999 (OJ 1999 L 83, p.1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directives 96/24/EC and 96/25/EC)

text:
C 186/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          30.6.2001
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First               which it:
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio,                  1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it                     comply with Council Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996
has ruled:                                                                       amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of com-
                                                                                pound feedingstuffs and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the
A commitment assumed by an insurance company to carry out, in                    circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,
return for remuneration at market rates, the business activities of              74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing
another insurance company, which is its 100 % subsidiary and which               Directive 77/101/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
would continue to conclude insurance contracts in its own name, does             fulfil its obligations under those directives;
not constitute an insurance transaction within the meaning of              2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:             (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
uniform basis of assessment.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-444/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 8 March 2001                                 the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond): R. J. de
                                                                           Laat v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzek-
in Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                                       eringen (1)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                           (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure             No 1408/71 — Frontier worker — ‘Partially unemployed’
       to transpose Directives 96/24/EC and 96/25/EC)                                                     — Meaning)
                           (2001/C 186/03)                                                              (2001/C 186/04)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-176/00: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-444/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
G. Kanellopoulos and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a                    rechtbank te Roermond, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            in the proceedings pending before that court between R. J. de
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 Laat and Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzeker-
Directives 96/24/EC of 29 April 1996 amending Directive                    ingen — on the interpretation of Article 71(1)(a) of Council
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (OJ                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
1996 L 125, p. 33) and 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC,             self-employed persons and to members of their families
74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Direc-                   moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
tive 77/101/EEC (OJ 1996 L 125, p. 35), the Hellenic Republic              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those         1983 L 230, p. 6), — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
directives — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,


title: Case T-145/10: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2012 — Solae v OHIM — Delitaste (alpha taste)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/20

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2012 — Solae v OHIM — Delitaste (alpha taste)
   (Case T-145/10) (1)

   2012/C 250/37
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1999 in Case C-234/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 4 de Madrid ): Teresa Fernández de Bobadilla v Museo Nacional del Prado , Comité de Empresa del Museo Nacional del Prado and Ministerio Fiscal (Recognition of qualifications - Restorer of cultural property - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Concept of 'regulated profession' - Article 48 of the EC Treaty [now, after amendment, Article 39 EC])

text:
18.12.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 366/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       On a proper construction, Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                             amendment, Article 39 EC):
                           of 8 July 1999
                                                                             — does not preclude the terms of a collective agreement which
                                                                                applies to a public body in a Member State and restricts the right
in Case C-234/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                             to practice within that body a particular profession which is not
from the Juzgado de lo Social No 4 de Madrid): Teresa                            regulated for the purposes of Council Directives 89/48/EEC of
Fernández de Bobadilla v Museo Nacional del Prado,                              21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of
Comité de Empresa del Museo Nacional del Prado and                               higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional
                        Ministerio Fiscal (1)                                    education and training of at least three years’ duration and
                                                                                92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the
                                                                                recognition of professional education and training to supplement
(Recognition of qualifications — Restorer of cultural prop-                      Directive 89/48 solely to those in possession of a qualification
erty — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Concept of                           awarded by an educational establishment in that Member State
‘regulated profession’ — Article 48 of the EC Treaty [now,                       or of any other foreign qualification which has been officially
                after amendment, Article 39 EC])                                 recognised by the competent authorities of that Member State,
                          (1999/C 366/01)                                    — none the less requires the authorities of the host Member State
                                                                                which are competent to grant official recognition to foreign
                                                                                diplomas or to validate them or, where no general procedure for
                                                                                granting official recognition has been established or is incompat-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               ible with the requirements of Community law, the public body
                                                                                itself, to consider, as regards the diplomas awarded in another
                                                                                Member State, the extent to which the knowledge and qualifi-
                                                                                cations certified by the diploma awarded to the person concerned
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                correspond to the knowledge and qualifications required by the
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                host Member State’s own legislation. Where they correspond only
                                                                                in part, it is also for the competent national authorities or, where
                                                                                appropriate, the public body itself, to assess whether the
In Case C-234/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Juzgado de lo                        knowledge acquired by the person concerned during a course of
                                                                                study or by way of practical experience is sufficient to show
Social No 4 de Madrid for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                possession of knowledge to which the foreign diploma does not
proceedings pending before that court between Teresa Fernàn-
dez de Bobadilla and Museo Nacional del Prado, Comité de                         attest.
Empresa del Museo Nacional del Prado, Ministerio Fiscal — on
the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 39 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch              (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
and P. Jann, Presidents of the Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
ray, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón,
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 8 July 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 1999 in Case C-112/97: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 90/396/EEC - Heaters - Installation in living areas)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 204/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Declares that, by establishing and maintaining in force a system
                                                                                which, in cases of new installation or conversion of gas appliances,
                                                                                requires that only sealed heaters be used in living areas, thereby
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                        implicitly prohibiting the installation of other types of heaters
                                                                                which comply with Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June
                                                                                1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                         of 25 March 1999                                        relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels, the Italian Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
in Case C-112/97: Commission of the European Communi-                        2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 90/396/EEC — Heaters — Installation in living
                                areas)
                          (1999/C 204/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                of 20 April 1999
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             in Case C-241/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             the Regeringsrätten in the proceedings brought before
                                                                               that court by Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) (1)
In Case C-112/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Paolo Stancanelli and Hans Støvlbaek) v Italian                     (Insurance Directives 73/239/EEC and 79/267/EEC —
Republic (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Fran-                                  Restrictions on choice of assets)
cesca Quadri) — application for a declaration that, by estab-
lishing and maintaining a system which requires that only
sealed heaters be installed in living areas, thereby implicitly                                          (1999/C 204/02)
prohibiting the installation of other types of heaters which
comply with Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                                  (Language of the case: Swedish)
to appliances burning gaseous fuels (OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15),
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
G. Hirsch (President of the Second Chamber), acting as                                           in the European Court Reports)
President of the Sixth Chamber, G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm,
R. Schintgen and K.M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  In Case C-241/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
on 25 March 1999, in which it:                                               the EC Treaty from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a


title: Case C-15/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (Accession of new Member States — Republic of Bulgaria — Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Directive 2004/114/EC — Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Leopold Sommer v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien
   (Case C-15/11) (1)

   (Accession of new Member States - Republic of Bulgaria - Member State legislation making the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market - Directive 2004/114/EC - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service)
   2012/C 250/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Leopold Sommer

      Defendant: Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service (OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12), particularly of Article 17 thereof, and of paragraph 14 of Annex VI of the list referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 104) — Rules of a Member State which make the grant of a work permit to Bulgarian nationals subject to an examination of the situation of the labour market — Possible application of Directive 2004/114/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Paragraph 14 of Point 1 of Annex VI to the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union must be interpreted to mean that the conditions of access to the labour market by Bulgarian students, at the time of the events in the main proceedings, may not be more restrictive than those set out in Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service.

               2.

               National legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings provides for a more restrictive treatment of Bulgarian nationals than that given to third-country nationals under Directive 2004/114.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-461/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against the order made on 11 September 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-270/99 Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against Council of the European Union, supported by the Hellenic Republic

text:
19.1.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 17/11
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt           PCBs to be removed or decontaminated, the plan referred
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                    to in Article 11 must be drawn up and notified to the
                                                                         Commission.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-          (1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.                          (2) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Andreas
                                                                         Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against the order made on
                                                                         11 September 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
Action brought on 22 November 2001 by the Com-                           the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                  T-270/99 Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa against
                      Republic of Germany                                Council of the European Union, supported by the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
                         (Case C-454/01)
                                                                                (Case C-461/01 P)
                          (2002/C 17/18)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/19)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             An appeal against the order made on 11 September 2001 by
ties on 22 November 2001 by the Commission of the                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen,                    (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-270/99 Andreas Tessas and
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Polixeni Tessa against Council of the European Union, support-
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a Member              ed by the Hellenic Republic, was brought before the Court of
of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.             Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2001
                                                                         by Andreas Tessas and Polixeni Tessa, represented by Andreas
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Tessas, of the Larissa Bar.
1.    Declare that, by failing to draw up within the prescribed          The appellants claim that the Court should:
      period the plan required by the first indent of Article 11(1)
      of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996             —     set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
      on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-                   Instance of 11 September 2001 in Case T-270/99 and
      chlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), or in any event by                     grant the form of order sought at first instance;
      failing to notify such plan to the Commission, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      under the EC Treaty;
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.            Grounds of appeal and main arguments
                                                                         —     Incorrect definition of the recipients of the Council
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                decision contested at first instance: the Court of First
                                                                               Instance wrongly held that the decision at issue was not
                                                                               of direct and individual concern to the appellants.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
C-435/01 (2); the prescribed period for the drawing up and               —     Infringement of the right to a fair hearing.
notification of the plan expired on 16 September 1999. Even
if the Federal Republic of Germany has only a relatively small           —     Infringement of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure
amount of equipment containing PCBs and small amounts of                       concerning costs.


title: Case F-22/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — ZZ v EMCDDA

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/34

         Action brought on 26 May 2014 — ZZ v EMCDDA
   (Case F-22/14)
   2014/C 235/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request that she be found to have suffered psychological harassment at the hands of her immediate superior and, second, the decision not to renew her contract, and of two other decisions rejecting her complaints against her superiors. The applicant accordingly also requests that a new investigation be carried out and seeks compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly caused.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 11 September 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request;

               —

               annul the decision of 14 September 2012 not to renew the applicant’s contract;

               —

               annul the decision of the Chairman of the Management Board of the EMCDDA of 13 May 2013 and that of the applicant’s EMCDDA Director of 25 June 2013 which rejected the applicant’s allegations in her complaint of 10 December 2013;

               —

               order a new regular, unbiased and impartial investigation;

               —

               grant compensation for the material prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 4 30  202;

               —

               grant compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant, estimated at EUR 1 20  000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case T-569/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM — Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/40

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM — Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)
   (Case T-569/08)
   (2009/C 55/72)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Visonic Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Beschorner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sedea Electronique SA (Seclin, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in joined cases R 946/2007-2 and R 1151/2007-2;

               —

               Declare Community trade mark No 1 562 982 ‘VISIONIC’ invalid in respect of all the goods concerned;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               Set a date for an oral hearing in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘VISIONIC’ for goods in class 9

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partly upheld the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in case R 946/2007-2; Annulled the contested decision rejecting the cancellation request; Dismissed the appeal in case R 1151/2007-2.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(3), 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94, as well as of general principles of trade mark law as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that the applicant gave its consent to the registration of the Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity and, as a result, failed to examine whether a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned exists.


title: Case C-342/09 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs, established in Gallecs (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) — Figurative mark Gallecs — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, Azeite Novo and the Community figurative mark GALLO — Rejection of the opposition — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2010 — Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs, established in Gallecs
   (Case C-342/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Figurative mark Gallecs - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, Azeite Novo and the Community figurative mark GALLO - Rejection of the opposition - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 80/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs, established in Gallecs

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-151/08 Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘GALLO’, ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ and ‘GALLO AZEITE’ and the Community figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 31 against Decision R 986/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 dismissing the appeal lodged against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘Gallecs’ for goods in Classes 29, 31 and 35 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Case C-41/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp): Belgian State v Foodic BV (a company in liquidation) and Peter Nyssen, Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf Verhaert NV, and A. Maas & Co. NV and Jozef Picavet (Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 - Specific import levies on certain milk products - Description of Kashkaval cheese - Completion of IMA 1 certificate by the competent authority not in compliance with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 258/7
Court, Cologne) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the proceedings pending before that court between SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale des Grandes Sources d'Eaux MineÂrales                                           (Third Chamber)
FrancËaises and Bundesamt für Finanzen Ð on the
interpretation of Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council                                        of 11 June 1998
Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
                                                                     in Case C-41/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                     the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp): Belgian State v Foodic BV
to turnover tax Ð Arrangements for the refund of value
                                                                     (a company in liquidation) and Peter Nyssen,
added tax to persons not established in the territory of the
                                                                     Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf Verhaert NV, and A. Maas
country (OJ L 331 of 27.12.1979, p. 11) Ð the Court
                                                                                & Co. NV and Jozef Picavet (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                     (Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 Ð
(Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                     Specific import levies on certain milk products Ð
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                     Description of Kashkaval cheese Ð Completion of IMA 1
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                     certificate by the competent authority not in compliance
judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                     with the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1767/82)
                                                                                (98/C 258/12)
1. Article 3(a) of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
     Ð Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to
     taxable persons not established in the territory of the
     country is to be interpreted as not precluding Member
     States from providing in their national law that a               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     taxable person who is not established in that Member                      published in the European Court Reports)
     State may prove his entitlement to a refund by
     submitting a duplicate invoice or import document
     where the original has been lost for reasons beyond his
     control, provided that the transaction which led to the
                                                                     In Case C-41/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     application for a refund occurred and there is no risk
     of further applications for a refund.                           of the EC Treaty from the Hof van Beroep (Court of
                                                                     Appeal), Antwerp, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Belgian
                                                                     State and Foodic BV (a company in liquidation) and Peter
                                                                     Nyssen, Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf Verhaert NV, and
                                                                     A. Maas & Co. NV and Jozef Picavet Ð on the
                                                                     interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1767/
                                                                     82 of 1 July 1982 laying down detailed rules for applying
2. Where a taxable person established in a Member State              specific import levies on certain milk products (OJ L 196
     may prove his entitlement to a refund of value added            of 5.7.1982, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),
     tax by submitting a duplicate or photocopy of the               composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
     invoice if the original which he received has been lost         Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
     for reasons beyond his control, the principle of non-           Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
     discrimination set out in Article 6 of the EC Treaty            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     and referred to in the fifth recital in the preamble to         judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
     the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC requires that the
     same possibility be extended to taxable persons not
     established in that Member State if the transaction
     which led to the application for a refund occurred and
     there is no risk of further applications for a refund.          1. The Kashkaval cheese referred to in Commission
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 of 1 July 1982 laying
                                                                         down detailed rules for applying specific import levies
                                                                         on certain milk products is Kashkaval cheese made
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                 exclusively from sheep's milk.
                                                                     2. An IMA 1 certificate completed in a manner contrary
                                                                         to the instructions set out in the Annexes to
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1767/82 does not satisfy the
                                                                         requirements of that regulation; products imported
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
     under such a certificate may thus not benefit from the               entered into force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom
     preferential rate provided for in that Regulation.                   of Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                          have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                          22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom
                                                                          to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                          Member States and between Member States and third
                                                                          countries;
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Grand Duchy
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                        of 11 June 1998
in Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium and
               Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
86 Ð Freedom to provide maritime transport services Ð                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Maritime Agreement concluded with a third country Ð                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                  Cargo-sharing arrangement)
                                                                                of 11 June 1998
                         (98/C 258/13)
                                                                     in Case C-291/97 P: H. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                (Language of the case: French)                       (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Invalidity procedure Ð Assessment
                                                                                of facts)
                                                                                (98/C 258/14)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases C-176/97 and C-177/97: Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: Frank Benyon) v                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) and Grand                             published in the European Court Reports)
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) for a
declaration that, by introducing and maintaining in force
cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between the             In Case C-291/97 P: H, a former official of the
Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia on                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
maritime transport, which was approved by the Kingdom                Brussels, represented by Vincent Lurquin, of the Brussels
of Belgium both in its own name and on behalf of the                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which entered into                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, Ð
force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium                   appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(C-176/97) and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-177/                 of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 3 June
97) have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 5 of       1997 in Case T-196/95 H v Commission [1997] ECR-SC
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December                   II-403, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services           party to the proceedings being Commission of the
to maritime transport between Member States and                      European Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira Ð
between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378 of               the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
31.12.1986, p. 1), the Court composed of: C. Gulmann                 President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
(President of Chamber), M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,                  Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,                 has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 June 1998, in which it:                               1. Dismisses the appeal;
1. Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force            2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
     cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between
     the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia                (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
     on maritime transport which was approved by the
     Kingdom of Belgium both in its own name and on
     behalf of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and which


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail, Brussels (Sixth Chamber) by judgment of that court of 11 May 1998 in the case of Belgian State, in the person of the Secretary of State for Social Integration, against Fatna Mesbah (Case C-179/98)

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?


title: Case C-323/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Madrid (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2008 — Ovidio Rodríguez Mayor, Pilar Pérez Boto, Pedro Gallego Morzillo, Alfonso Francisco Pérez, Juan Marcelino Gabaldón Morales, Marta María Maestro Campo and Bartolomé Valera Huete v the estate in abeyance of Rafael de las Heras Dávila, Sagrario de las Heras Dávila and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Madrid (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2008 — Ovidio Rodríguez Mayor, Pilar Pérez Boto, Pedro Gallego Morzillo, Alfonso Francisco Pérez, Juan Marcelino Gabaldón Morales, Marta María Maestro Campo and Bartolomé Valera Huete v the estate in abeyance of Rafael de las Heras Dávila, Sagrario de las Heras Dávila and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-323/08)
   (2008/C 236/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ovidio Rodríguez Mayor, Pilar Pérez Boto, Pedro Gallego Morzillo, Alfonso Francisco Pérez, Juan Marcelino Gabaldón Morales, Marta María Maestro Campo and Bartolomé Valera Huete

      Other parties: the estate in abeyance of Rafael de las Heras Dávila, Sagrario de las Heras Dávila and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   Questions referred

               1.

               By restricting the definition of collective redundancies to dismissals on economic, technical, organisational or production grounds and by failing to extend the definition to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, does Article 51 of the Spanish Workers' Statute fail to fulfil the obligations imposed in Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies?

               2.

               Is the legal rule in Article 49(1)(g) of the Workers' Statute, which establishes for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the death, retirement or incapacity of the employer compensation limited to one month's remuneration, excluding them from the scope of Article 51 of the Statute and failing to comply with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Directive, also contrary to Council Directive 98/59/EC?

               3.

               Does the Spanish legislation on collective redundancies, and specifically Articles 49(1)(g) and 51 of the Workers' Statute, infringe Article 30 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and the Community Charter of the fundamental social rights of workers adopted at the European Council meeting held in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case T-508/12: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/44

         Order of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — Automobile Association v OHIM — Duncan Petersen Publishing (Classeurs)
   (Case T-508/12) (1)

   2014/C 45/78
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.