title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-148/89: Tréfilunion SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
3 . 6 . 95          | EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/19
3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining                Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     claims;                                                          Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue
                                                                      Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European
4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay                 Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
     one-third of the Commission 's costs;                            Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the
                                                                      annulment      of  Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
5 . orders the Commission to bear two-thirds of its
     costs .
                                                                      2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                      the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                     260, p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                                                                      composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                      Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
                                                                      H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
                                                                      which the Court:
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      I. annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC
                        ( First Chamber )                                  of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under
                        of 6 April 1995                                    Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel
in Case T-147/89: Société Métallurgique de Normandie                       mesh) as regards the finding therein that there was an
       v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                     agreement between the applicant and Baustahlgewebe
                                                                           GmbH to subject their future exports to quotas;
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
                               Treaty)                                2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
                          ( 95/C 137/45 )                                  by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 1 235 000;
                (Language of the Case: French)                        3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                           claims;
In Case T-147/89 : Societe Metallurgique de Normandie,
established in Mondeville ( France ), represented by Robert           4 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
Collin and Richard Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an                     four-fifths ot the Commission 's costs;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  5 . orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its costs.
Ernest Arendt, 8—1 0 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
Currall, A. Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for
the annulment of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
the EEC Treaty ( IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989
L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,                                     (First Chamber )
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
which the Court :                                                                             of 6 April 1995
                                                                      in Case T-149/89 : Sotralentz SA v. Commission of the
I. dismisses the application;                                                           European Communities (*)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                            (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
                                                                                Treaty)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                                               ( 95/C 137/47 )
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-149/89 : Sotralentz SA, established in Drulingen
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      ( France ), represented by Xavier de Mello, Philippe Pepy and
                        ( First Chamber )                             Jean Christian Percerou, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                        of 6 April 1995                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bruno Decker,
in Case T-148/89 : Trefilunion SA v. Commission of the                16 Avenue Marie-Therese, v. Commission of the European
                  European Communities i 1 )                          Communities (Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
                                                                      Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the
(Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                      annulment      of  Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
                               Treaty)                                2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                          ( 95 /C 137/46 )                            the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
                                                                      260 , p. 1 .) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                (Language of the Case: French)                        composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                      Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
In Case T-148/89 : Trefilunion SA, established in Puteaux             H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
( France ), represented by Robert Collin and Richard                  which the Court:


title: Case C-146/07: Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-146/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/67)

      Language of the case: Swedish

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-535/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — General obligation to register and information requirements — Unregistered chemicals — Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg v Jost Pinckernelle
   (Case C-535/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - General obligation to register and information requirements - Unregistered chemicals - Export of unregistered chemicals outside the territory of the European Union))
   (2017/C 202/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Defendant: Jost Pinckernelle

      intervening parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that substances which have not be registered at the time of their import into the territory of the European Union in accordance with that regulation may be exported outside that territory.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court, Dublin, by decision of that court of 5 April 1995, in the case of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance (Case C-243/95)

text:
No C 229/ 16             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 9 . 95
      frozen beef falling within CN code 0202 and products                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court,
      falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (*) invalid and                   Dublin, by decision of that court of 5 April 1995 , in the case
      contrary to EC Law to the extent that it required                   of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
      operators seeking to qualify for 1994 quota referred to                    Commissioners and the Department of Finance
      in that sub-Article on the basis of their past beef exports                                    Case C-243/95 )
      to have exported at least 150 tonnes in the previous year,
      rather than 110 tonnes as had been required in 1993 ? In                                       ( 95/C 229/34 )
      particular, is Article 1 ( 2 ) invalid and contrary to EC law
      as :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by a decision of the Labour Court,
      ( a ) exceeding the powers conferred upon the
                                                                          Dublin of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
             Commission by Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                          Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
             No 130/94 of 24 January 1994 opening and
                                                                          of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
             providing for the administration of a Community
                                                                          Commissioners and the Department of Finance, on the
             tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals
                                                                          following questions :
             falling within CN code 0202 and products falling
             within CN code 0206 29 91 (2 );
                                                                          In circumstances in which far more female workers than
      ( b ) infringing the principle of proportionality;                  male workers spend part of their working lives in a
                                                                          job-sharing capacity:
      ( c ) infringing      the       principle    of     legitimate
             expectations;
                                                                          (a ) Does a prima-facie case of indirect discrimination arise
                                                                                where job-sharing workers who convert to full-time
      ( d ) infringing the duty to give adequate reasons                        work are given credit for incremental progression on
             pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and/or                   the scale of pay for full-time staff by reference to actual
                                                                                time worked such that, while the benefits awarded to
      ( e ) having been adopted without proper consultation                     them are fully pro-rated to those awarded to staff who
             of the Beef Management Committee, contrary to                      have always worked full-time, they are placed at lower
             Article 4 of Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 and                       points on the full-time scale than comparators who are
             Article 27 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 of the                  in all respects similar to them except that they have
             Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                              worked continuously on a full-time basis ?
             organization of the market in beef and veal ( 3 )?
                                                                                In other words, is the principle of equal pay, as defined
                                                                                in Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975
2 . Is Article 2 (2 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 214/94 invalid                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      and contrary to EC law, to the extent that it excludes                    relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
      companies arising from mergers where each part has                        for men and women ( J ), contravened, if employees,
      rights pursuant to Article 1 ( 2 ) of that Regulation from                who convert from job-sharing to full-time work,
      the opportunity to cumulate their past trading                            regress on the incremental scale and hence on their
      performance ? In particular, does Article 2 ( 2 ) violate:                salary scale, due to the application by the employer of
                                                                                the criterion of service calculated by time worked in a
       ( a ) the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as                  job ?
             companies deriving their rights from Article 1 ( 1 ) of
             that Regulation can merge and cumulate their past
             trading performance for the purpose of obtaining             ( b ) If so, does the employer have to provide special
                                                                                justification for recourse to the criterion of service,
             quota ; whereas companies deriving their rights
             from Article 1 (2 ) cannot; and/or                                 defined as actual time worked, in awarding incremental
                                                                                credit .
       ( b ) the guarantee referred to in the second recital to
             Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 of continuing access to           (c ) If so, can a practice of incremental progression by
             quota by all interested operators within the                       reference to actual time worked be objectively justified
              Community ?                                                       by reference to factors other than the acquisition of a
                                                                                particular level of skill and experience over time ?
(') OJ No L 27, 1.2 . 1994, p . 46 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 22 , 27. 1 . 1994, p . 3 .                                   (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 148 , 28 . 6 . 1968 , p . 24 .


title: Case C-180/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Request for a preliminary ruling — Legal basis of the decision at issue in the main proceedings no longer present — Lack of relevance of the questions asked — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-180/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Legal basis of the decision at issue in the main proceedings no longer present - Lack of relevance of the questions asked - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 367/17
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stoilov i Ko EOOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1) and Council Regulation No (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) as well as Articles 41(2)(a) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Tariff classification of goods — Classification of goods (materials for the manufacture of awnings) under heading 5407 61 30 on account of its characteristics as ‘woven fabric’ or under heading 6303 92 10 on account of their sole intended purpose as ‘interior blinds’ — Enforcement order of a Member State requiring payment of a customs duty supplement and VAT after the findings in an expert's report of the customs laboratory — Protection of legitimate expectation in light of the circumstances of the filing of the customs declaration

      Operative part of the judgment

   There is no need to answer the questions raised by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria).

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case T-18/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO — Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO)
   (Case T-18/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO - Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 104/67)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy) (represented by: V. Fiorillo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1764/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Etike’ International and DMC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DMC Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-342/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Recognition of professional qualifications — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 5 — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 16 and 17(6) — Article 56 TFEU — Tax consultancy company established in a Member State and providing services in another Member State — Legislation of a Member State requiring the registration and recognition of tax consultancy companies)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord
   (Case C-342/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 5 - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 16 and 17(6) - Article 56 TFEU - Tax consultancy company established in a Member State and providing services in another Member State - Legislation of a Member State requiring the registration and recognition of tax consultancy companies))
   (2016/C 068/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU, legislation of a Member State which defines the conditions of access to the activity of professional assistance in tax matters may not restrict the freedom to provide services of a tax consultancy company — formed in accordance with the law of another Member State in which that company is established, which draws up, in the latter Member State where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return on behalf of a recipient of services in the first Member State and sends that tax return to the tax authority of the first Member State —, without the qualification obtained by that company, or by the natural persons providing services of professional assistance in tax matters for that company, in other Member States being accorded its proper value and being duly taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL — Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX — Relative ground for refusal — Damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL)
   (Joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Helena Rubinstein SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers) (Case T-345/08); and L’Oréal SA (Paris) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Pagenberg, lawyers) (Case T-357/08)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States)

      Re:

   ACTIONS brought against, in Case T-345/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2008 (Case R 863/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and Helena Rubinstein SNC, and, in Case T-357/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 865/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and L’Oréal SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC to pay the costs in Case T-345/08;

               3.

               Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs in Case T-357/08.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-141/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/17

         Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-141/05)
   (2005/C 115/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by Kingdom of Spain, represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 (1) fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, in so far as it does not assign specific quotas to the Spanish fleet in Community waters in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea;

               2.

               order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those in Case C-134/04 (2).

      (1)  OJ L 12, of 14.01.2005, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 106, of 30. 04. 2004, p. 39.


title: Case F-94/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/23

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-94/12)
   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 377/54
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 on account of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of breach of confidentiality of medical information.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-326/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2014  — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2014 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG
   (Case C-326/14)
   2014/C 339/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Defendant: A1 Telekom Austria AG

      Question referred

   Is the right, provided for in Article 20(2) of the Universal Service Directive (1), for subscribers to withdraw from their contracts without penalty ‘upon notice of … modifications in the contractual conditions’ also to be provided for in the case where an adjustment to charges derives from contractual conditions which, from the time when the contract is first concluded, provide that future charges are to be adjusted (upwards or downwards) in accordance with changes in an objective consumer price index reflecting movements in the value of money?

      (1)  Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 21 January 1998 in the cases of Johann Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Case C-42/98)

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/7
decided to terminate the contract, governed by Italian law,        gerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of 21 January
on the ground of breach of contract by the defendant.              1998, received at the Court Registry on 19 February
                                                                   1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Johann
                                                                   Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger
                                                                   Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent
                                                                   Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg) and Jörg
                                                                   Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission               Kärnten     (Independent     Administrative     Board     for
of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie                 Carinthia),    additional    party:   Bundesminister      für
                        Vetroresina SpA                            Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science
                                                                   and Transport), on the following question:
                        (Case C-41/98)
                         (98/C 137/14)
                                                                   are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose            freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court         of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February              preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assited            transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address          abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez            slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
                                                                   observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                   calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
                                                                   the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 77 558,80 together
    with interest, from 1 February 1990 until payment is
    actually made, at a rate of ECU 24,97 per day,
Ð order the defendant to pay to the Commission ECU
    7 700, or any other amount which the Court might
    deem equitable, by way of compensation for damage,
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) by order of
                                                                   that court of 29 January 1998 in the case of BASF AG v.
                                                                              President of the German Patent Office
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-44/98)
The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
                                                                                (98/C 137/16)
repayment of an advance paid under contract BREU-
0114-I(A) for the design of structures manufactured from
composite materials using CAD-CAM techniques, and the
completion of a completely automated production                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
prototype, using the filament-winding' method. The                European      Communities      by    an    order    of    the
Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed             Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) of 29 January
by Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the         1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
defendant.                                                         20 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   BASF AG v. President of the German Patent Office on the
                                                                   following question:
                                                                   is it compatible with the principles of the free movement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-             of goods (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) for a
gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 21 January          patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect
1998 in the cases of Johann Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber            in a Member State which is drafted in a language other
against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes               than the official language of that Member State to be
Salzburg and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger               deemed void ab initio if the patent-holder does not file
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundes-            with the patent office of the Member State in question a
           minister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                   translation of the patent specification in the official
                        (Case C-42/98)                             language of that Member State within three months of the
                                                                   publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the
                         (98/C 137/15)                             mention of the grant of the patent?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-275/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transactions — Letting of immovable property — Meaning — Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises)

text:
C 184/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               2.8.2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            procedures provided for by the abovementioned directive in order
                                                                                to challenge the validity of the decision of the contracting
                                                                                authority not to consider his tender offer as the best bid, on
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                         the ground that that tender was bound to have been eliminated
                                                                                beforehand by the contracting authority for other reasons and
                                                                                that, as a result, he was not or did not risk being harmed by
                            of 19 June 2003                                         the infringement he alleges. In the context of the review
                                                                                procedure to which the aforementioned tenderer is entitled, the
                                                                                tenderer must be allowed to challenge the validity of the ground
in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           for exclusion on the basis of which the review body intends to
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG                               conclude that he was not or did not risk being harmed by the
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener                                     decision the validity of which he challenges.
                 Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (1)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review
                       procedures are accessible)
                             (2003/C 184/14)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
In Case C-249/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 in Case C-275/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary                    the House of Lords): Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                        of Customs and Excise (1)
Werner Hackermüller and BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft
mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH — on
the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/               (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac-
EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws,                     tions — Letting of immovable property — Meaning —
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the appli-              Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises)
cation of review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                                              (2003/C 184/15)
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                                          (Language of the case: English)
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December             In Case C-275/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and admin-           EC by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the
      istrative provisions relating to the application of review proce-       proceedings pending before that court between Sinclair Collis
      dures to the award of public supply and public works contracts,         Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the inter-
      as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992               pretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of             388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      public service contracts, does not preclude that the review             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
      procedures provided for by that directive should be accessible to       system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
      a person seeking the award of a specific public contract only           1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      where he risks being harmed by the infringement alleged by              C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
      him.                                                                    as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                              S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
2.    Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in
      50, precludes a tenderer being refused access to the review             which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/9
On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council               1.    On a proper construction of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of                       388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                   of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the grant, by               system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, a
the owner of premises to an owner of a cigarette vending machine, of                business which purchases debts, assuming the risk of the
the right to install the machine, and to operate and maintain it in the             debtors' default, and which, in return, invoices its clients in
premises for a period of two years, in a place nominated by the owner               respect of commission pursues an economic activity for the
of the premises, in return for a percentage of the gross profits on the             purposes of Articles 2 and 4 of that directive, so that it has
sales of cigarettes and other tobacco goods in the premises, but with no            the status of taxable person and thus enjoys the right to deduct
rights of possession or control being granted to the owner of the                   tax under Article 17 thereof.
machine other than those expressly set out in the agreement between
the parties, does not amount to a letting of immovable property within
the meaning of that provision.                                                2.    An economic activity by which a business purchases debts,
                                                                                assuming the risk of the debtors' default, and, in return, invoices
                                                                                its clients in respect of commission, constitutes ‘debt collection
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                         and factoring’ within the meaning of the final clause of
                                                                                Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) and is
                                                                                therefore excluded from the exemption laid down by that
                                                                                provision.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 26 June 2003                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-305/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                 (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Groß-Gerau v MKG-
                  Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH (1)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
(Value added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Field of
application — Factoring — Factoring company purchasing                        in Case C-315/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      debts and assuming the risk of the debtors' default)                    the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Gesellschaft für Abfallent-
                                                                              sorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) v Österreichische Auto-
                                                                                bahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG) (1)
                             (2003/C 184/16)
                                                                              (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
                     (Language of the case: German)                           procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
                                                                              works contracts — Power of the review body to examine any
                                                                              infringement of its own motion — Directive 93/36/EEC —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in     Procedures for the award of public supply contracts —
                       the European Court Reports)                                            Eligibility criteria — Award criteria)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/17)
In Case C-305/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanz-                                       (Language of the case: German)
amt Groß-Gerau and MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factory GmbH, on
the interpretation of certain provisions of the Sixth Council
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                        the European Court Reports)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, F. Macken and                          In Case C-315/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                            Gesellschaft für Abfallentsorgungs-Technik GmbH (GAT) and


title: Case C-36/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags market — Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Armando Álvarez SA v European Commission
   (Case C-36/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags market - Attribution to the parent company of the infringement committed by the subsidiary - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 253/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Armando Álvarez SA (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and C. Ruixo Claramunt, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-78/06 Álvarez v Commission dismissing an application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Armando Álvarez

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Armando Álvarez SA to pay the costs of this appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-222/06: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-222/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/58)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-329/09: Action brought on 24 August 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM (Brown convex square)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/69

         Action brought on 24 August 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM (Brown convex square)
   (Case T-329/09)
   2009/C 267/126
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale des Logis (Paris, France) (represented by C. Champagner Katz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 in Case R 0202/2009-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Mark representing a brown convex square for the goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 — Application No 6468722

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the representation of a special and specific square with convex edges in a particular and specific brown colour is distinctive with respect to the goods and services for which registration was sought, in so far as those elements give the mark a particular appearance for those goods and services.


title: Case C-433/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Yaesu Europe BV v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Eighth VAT Directive — Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Annex A — Application for a refund — Meaning of signature of that application — National legislation requiring the personal signature of the taxable person, or of the statutory representative of that person, and ruling out signature by an agent)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Yaesu Europe BV v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-433/08) (1)

   (Eighth VAT Directive - Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Annex A - Application for a refund - Meaning of ‘signature’ of that application - National legislation requiring the personal signature of the taxable person, or of the statutory representative of that person, and ruling out signature by an agent)
   2010/C 24/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Yaesu Europe BV

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Interpretation of the specimen application in Annex A to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — ‘Signature’ as referred to in the model application for a refund — National legislation requiring the personal signature of the applicant, or of the applicant’s statutory representative, and ruling out signature by an agent

      Operative part of the judgment

   ‘Signature’ of an application for a refund of value added tax, as referred to in the specimen form set out in Annex A to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, is a Community law notion which must be interpreted uniformly to the effect that such a refund application need not necessarily be signed by the taxable person in person and that the signature of an agent may be sufficient for those purposes.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case C-27/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 5 January 2005 in Elfering Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 5 January 2005 in Elfering Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-27/05)
   (2005/C 82/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) (Germany) of 5 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Elfering Export GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
   Is the declaration made in an export declaration that the product in respect of which a refund is sought is of Community origin information to which a penalty may attach under Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 (1) in conjunction with Article 5(4) thereof?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.


title: Case C-386/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014  — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 13 August 2014 — Groupe Steria SCA v Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts
   (Case C-386/14)
   2014/C 372/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Groupe Steria SCA

      Defendant: Ministry of Finance and Public Accounts

      Question referred

   Must Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU) on freedom of establishment be interpreted as precluding the rules governing the French tax-integration regime from granting a tax-integrated parent company neutralisation as regards the add-back of the proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from tax-integrated resident companies only, when such a right is refused to it under those rules as regards the dividends distributed to it from its subsidiaries established in another Member State, which had they been resident would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected?


title: Case T-265/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Algemene service- en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Algemene service- en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort v Commission
   (Case T-265/99) (1)

   (2006/C 261/60)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.


title: Case T-152/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ALIA — Earlier Community figurative mark ALAÏA PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Azzedine Alaïa (ALIA)
      (Case T-152/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALIA - Earlier Community figurative mark ALAÏA PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 25/94)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, M.E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Holah, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Azzedine Alaïa and El Corte Inglés, SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 February 2010 (Case R 924/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal excluded the goods in Class 3 corresponding to the description ‘Perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices’ from its analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, OHIM and Mr Azzedine Alaïa each to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-49/04: Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/19

         Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-49/04)
   (2004/C 94/40)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, or, in any event, by failing to forward those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 22 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.


title: Case T-410/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Jurado Hermanos, S.L. v OHIM (JURADO)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/23

         Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Jurado Hermanos, S.L. v OHIM (JURADO)
   (Case T-410/07)
   (2008/C 8/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Jurado Hermanos, S.L. (Alicante, Spain) (represented by C. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 3 September 2007 in Case R 866/2007-2;

               —

               Give judgment on the merits of the case, recognising JURADO HERMANOS, S.L., as an interested party in the renewal procedure for Community trade mark No 240.218, JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. being the exclusive and registered licensee of that mark, and acceding to the application for restitutio in integrum filed by JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. in relation to the renewal of the Community trade mark No 240.218, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘JURADO’ (Application No 240.218).

      Goods or Services: goods in Class 30.

      Proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject of the application: CAFETAL DE COSTA RICA S.A.

      Decision of the Examiner: dismissal by the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division of the application for restitutio in integrum brought by the applicant, the licensee of the trade mark in question, as a result of the cancellation of the registration of that trade mark, owing to the failure of the proprietor to seek the appropriate renewal.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: infringement of the right to a fair hearing and an incorrect interpretation, in the present case, of Articles 47 and 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-1/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen (Germany), lodged on 3 January 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Siegen (Germany), lodged on 3 January 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Frank Weber
   (Case C-1/07)
   (2007/C 42/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Siegen
   Party to the main proceedings
   Frank Weber
   Question referred
   Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is precluded, within its territory, from refusing to recognise or from denying the validity of an entitlement to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State because the right to drive was withdrawn from its holder in the first Member State after the grant to him in another Member State of a so-called ‘second’ EU right to drive, if the withdrawal of the right to drive is based on an incident or on misconduct which occurred prior to the grant of the right to drive by the other Member State?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EC of 29 July 1991 on driving licenses, OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Case C-420/14 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2014 by Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2014 in Case T-239/12 Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/2

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2014 by Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2014 in Case T-239/12 Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-420/14 P)
   (2015/C 096/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Jyoti Ceramic Industries PVT. Ltd (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DeguDent GmbH
   By order of 5 February 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and decided to order the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 May 2001 in Case C-204/97: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid for producers of liqueur wines and eaux-de-vie — Aid granted by the French Republic in the context of an increase in internal taxation)

text:
C 200/8                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              of 3 May 2001                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-204/97: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
                                                                                of 3 May 2001
                   the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Aid for producers of liqueur wines and eaux-                   in Joined Cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P: Ajinomoto Co.,
de-vie — Aid granted by the French Republic in the context                  Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v Council of the
                 of an increase in internal taxation)                                               European Union (1)
                             (2001/C 200/13)                                (Appeal — Dumping — Normal value — Existence of a
                                                                            patent in the exporter’s domestic market — Effect on the
                                                                            lawfulness of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-
                                                                            dumping duty of an allegedly illegal element of the regulation
                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                (2001/C 200/14)
                      in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-204/97: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,                                    (Language of the case: English)
Â. Seiça Neves and C. Botelho Moniz) supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: A. M. Alves Vieira and                        In Joined Cases C-76/98 P and C-77/98 P: Ajinomoto Co.,
D. Triantafyllou) supported by French Republic (Agents:                     Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by M. Siragusa,
K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot) — application for annul-                 avvocato, T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and V. Donaldson,
ment of the Commission’s decision of 6 November 1996                        solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, and The
concerning aid intended to be granted by the French Republic                NutraSweet Company, established at Deerfield (United States),
to producers of liqueur wines and eaux de vie in the form of                represented by J.-F. Bellis, avocat, and F. Di Gianni, avvocato,
aid for promotional measures and technical aid for research,                with an address for service in Luxembourg — appeals against
technical support and investment, a summary of which was                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of            Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
6 March 1997 (OJ 1997 C 70, p. 14) — the Court, composed                    18 December 1997 in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third and Sixth Chambers,                  Ajinomoto and NutraSweet v Council [1997] ECR II-2461,
acting for the President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                    seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporte-               the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
ur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Judges;         G. Houttuin and S. Marquardt, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,              G.M. Berrisch) and Commission of the European Communities
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in                   (Agent: N. Khan) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
which it:                                                                   C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporte-
                                                                            ur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 6 November 1996                  P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
       concerning aid intended to be granted by the French Republic         for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in
       to producers of liqueur wines and eaux de vie in the form of aid     which it:
       for promotional measures and technical aid for research,
       technical support and investment;                                    1.    Dismisses the appeals;
2.     Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay             2.    Orders Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and The NutraSweet Company to
       the costs;                                                                 bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council
                                                                                of the European Union in these proceedings;
3.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
       their own costs.                                                     3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                                                                                its own costs.
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                  (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case T-153/04: Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/11

         Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-153/04)
   (2004/C 168/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Ferriere Nord SpA, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the decisions of the Commission of the European Communities contained in the registered letter BUDG/C-5/DS (D2004) / 51138 of 5 February 2004, received by the applicant on 13 February 2004, and the fax BUDG/C-05/DS (D2004) 53883, received by the applicant on 13 April 2004, by which Ferriere Nord was requested to pay the sums of EUR 564 402.26 and EUR 341 932.32 respectively in relation to the proceeding IV/31.553 – Welded steel mesh;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its complaints, the applicant submits that the decisions referred to above, which enforce the Commission decision of 2 August 1989 (in which the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of ECU 320 000 for infringement of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty) are unlawful because they were adopted after expiry of the limitation period laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/74 of the Council concerning limitation periods in proceedings and enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition (1). In particular:

               —

               the Commission decision of 2 August 1989 became final with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997 and so, on that date, the limitation period of five years laid down by Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/74 began to run;

               —

               that period was interrupted by the Commission's letter of 11 September 1997, notified to the applicant on 18 September 1997, with the result that a new limitation period of five years started to run (pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/74);

               —

               the Commission therefore should have enforced the decision imposing the fine by 11 September 2002 or, at the latest, by 18 September 2002;

               —

               the contested decisions by contrast are those of 5 February 2004 (received by the applicant on 13 February 2004) and 13 April 2004 (received by the applicant by fax on 13 April 2004);

               —

               the Commission's power to bring legal proceedings to enforce its decision of 2 August 1989 is therefore time-barred.

      (1)  OJ L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1.


title: Case C-265/11 P: Appeal lodged on 24 May 2011 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v European Commission

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/2

         Appeal lodged on 24 May 2011 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v European Commission
   (Case C-265/11 P)
   2012/C 13/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: M. Campailla)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 6 October 2011, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared the appeal inadmissible.


title: Case C-492/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax — Reduced rate — Articles 96 and 98(2) — Annex III, point 15 — Legal aid — Services of lawyers — Payment in full or in part by the State)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-492/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Reduced rate - Articles 96 and 98(2) - Annex III, point 15 - Legal aid - Services of lawyers - Payment in full or in part by the State)
   2010/C 221/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT directive’) — Reduced rate of VAT — Categories of services listed in Annex III to the VAT directive which can benefit from a reduced rate — Reduction in the rate of VAT for services provided by lawyers paid by the State under the legal aid scheme

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of services by avocats, avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in full or in part by the State under the legal aid scheme, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Removal from the register of Case C-504/03 (1)

   (2005/C 143/49)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-504/03 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Action brought on 23 September 1996 by Confederazione Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti (COLDIRETTI) and Others against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Case T-149/96)

text:
No C 370/ 16         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7 . 12 . 96
Action brought on 23 September 1996 by Confederazione                  The applicants point out in this respect that when a public
Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti ( COLDIRETTI) and Others                 health emergency ( foot-and-mouth disease ) occurred in
against Commission of the European Communities and                     Italy, the farmers slaughtered all the animals and refrained
                 Council of the European Union                         from exporting infected meat, thus dealing with the root of
                        ( Case T-149/96 )                              the problem . That has not been done by the United
                                                                       Kingdom, on which the Community has not imposed any
                          ( 96/C 370/34 )
                                                                       sanction likely to eliminate the problem. Instead, it has
                                                                       merely formally embargoed exports of United Kingdom
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      cattle, and has failed to do what it unarguably ought to
                                                                       have done : order the United Kingdom to resolve the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       problem within its own borders also. According to the
Communities and Council of the European Union was
                                                                       applicants, it constitutes serious negligence to believe that
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             the spread of the disease can be halted simply by restricting
Communities on 23 September 1996 by Confederazione
                                                                       exports .
Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti ( COLDIRETTI ), established
in Rome, and Others, represented by Roberto G. Aloisio, of
the Rome Bar and Fabrizio Massoni, of tihe Brussels Bar,               As regards the alleged invalidity of Regulation No 1357/96 ,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              the applicants state that they seek its annulment only if it
of Jim Penning, 31 Grand Rue .                                         precludes the application for full compensation for the loss
                                                                       suffered. The regulation provides for the payment of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            additional premiums to producers of cattle 'with a view to
                                                                       ensuring the future of the sector'. The applicants claim that
— order the defendants, in accordance with the second                  those provisions are invalid, in so far as they provide for the
     paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, jointly and            payment of additional premiums in respect of losses of
     severally to pay the sum due to each of the applicants            income to the producers and not in respect of the higher
     by way of compensation for damage to be assessed                  costs which they are forced to bear. In their view, payment
     during the proceedings, together with default interest at         of those additional premiums cannot deprive the injured
     the rate of 10% and taking inflation into account until           parties of their right to full compensation for all losses
     actual payment ( see Case C-308/87 Grifoni v. EAEC                suffered .
     [ 1994] ECR 1-341 ),
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1357/96 in so far as
     it limits the amount of compensation to be allocated to
     farmers and, in any event, quantifies that compensation
     by reference solely to lost income and not to increased           Action brought on 16 October 1996 by Max Kogler against
     costs ,                                                                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities
— order the defendants or the defendant held to be liable                                      ( Case T- 160/96 )
     to pay the costs of the proceedings .                                                       ( 96/C 370/35 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicants, who are the Confederazione Nazionale
Coltivatori Diretti and numerous individual owner-occupier
                                                                        An action against the Court of Justice of the European
farmers, seek compensation for damage which they claim
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
has been caused by the way in which the Community                       Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1996
institutions responded to the collapse of the beef and veal             by Max Kogler, of Konz ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
market as a result of the outbreak of BSE ( bovine
                                                                        represented by Theo Bakes, Rechtsanwalt, of Trier ( Federal
 spongiform encephalitis, known as 'mad cow disease ') in               Republic of Germany), with an address for service in
the United Kingdom.                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rene Weber, of Messrs
                                                                        Weber, Stein & Thiel, 3 Rue de la Loge .
 According to the applicants, the defendants did not make
 proper use of the powers and duties which they possess in
 order to avert crises and the danger of crises with harmful            The applicant claims that the Court should:
 consequences for the health of Community nationals . They
 allege that the Community institutions:
                                                                        — annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of the
 — have misused the powers available to them,                               Court of Justice of 1 July 1996 ,
 — have failed to make use in time of the repressive                    — recalculate and definitively determine the applicant's
      measures provided for by Community legislation which                  retirement pension for the period from 1 July 1991 to
      would have eradicated the epidemic,                                   30 June 1994 on the basis of the weightings for Berlin
                                                                            fixed annually by the Council,
 — have negligently underestimated the extent of the
      problem and, by failing to tackle it with the requisite
      decisiveness, have allowed infected beef and veal to              — alternatively, designate a date in the near future when
      circulate in Europe .                                                 that calculation and determination will take place .


title: Case C-520/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero against Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
C 59/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            6.3.2004
Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission                         public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                    the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive. It
                                                                            follows that the Italian Republic has also failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under Article 8 of the directive.
                          (Case C-516/03)
                           (2004/C 59/06)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo
represented by M. Konstantinidis, member of its Legal Service,              Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
and R. Amorosi, judge of the District Court on secondment to                Valenciana by order of that Court of 27 November 2003
that Service, acting as Agent.                                              in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero against Fondo
                                                                                de Garantía Salarial
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-520/03)
—     Declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to
      ensure that waste generated in Campolungo (Ascoli
      Piceno) is recovered or disposed of without endangering                                          (2004/C 59/07)
      human health and without using processes or methods
      which could harm the environment and, by not taking
      the measures necessary to ensure that any holder of waste
      so generated has it handled by a private or public waste
      collector or by an undertaking which carries out the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive, or             European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social del
      recovers or disposes of it himself, the Italian Republic has          Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of            (Chamber for Social and Labour Matters of the High Court of
      Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive                 Justice of the Community of Valencia) of 27 November 2003,
      91/156/EEC;                                                           received at the Court Registry on 12 December 2003, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of José Vincente Olaso Valero
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          against Fondo de Garantía Salarial on the following questions:
                                                                            A)    Does the compensation claimed for unfair dismissal fall
                                                                                within the scope of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   1980 (1) in its version prior to that as amended by
                                                                                Directive 2000/74/EC (2)?
According to the Commission, the Italian Republic has adopted
                                                                            B)    In the context of respect for the principles of equality and
no measures to ensure that the waste discharged in Campolun-
                                                                                non-discrimination, can the rules set out in Article 33(2)
go is recovered or disposed of without endangering human
                                                                                of the consolidated text of the Ley de Estatuto de los
health and without using processes or methods which could
                                                                                Trabajadores, inasmuch as they require a ruling or an
harm the environment. The Italian authorities submit merely
                                                                                administrative decision in order for Fogasa to pay the
that the progressive mineralisation of waste raises questions
                                                                                appropriate compensation, be considered objectively
about the production of 35 m3 of lechate per day, without
                                                                                unreasonable and, accordingly, inapplicable?
giving any clear observations on the merits, and before
expressly admitting that ‘the production and therefore dif-
fusion of lechate may continue indefinitely’.
                                                                            (1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                                approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                                protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
The Commission further points out that, according to
                                                                                employer (OJ L 283 of 28.10.1980, p. 23).
Article 175(4) of the EC Treaty, the Member States are                      (2) Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the
responsible for financing and implementing the environment                      Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/
policy so that the lack of sufficient financial resources cannot                987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
be used as a justification for the failure to take specific                     relating to the protection of employees in the event of the
measures to make good the site. It must therefore be concluded                  insolvency of their employer (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 270
that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            of 8.10.2002, p. 10).
Article 4 of the directive. Furthermore, the Italian Republic has
failed to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any
holder of waste so generated has it handled by a private or


title: Case C-181/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/14

         Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-181/08)
   (2008/C 158/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Austria, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 March 2003 amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (1) or by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive.

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time limit for transposition of the directive expired on 15 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 97, p. 48.