title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2001 in Case T-52/99 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on WTO rules — Misuse of powers — General principles of Community law)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 150/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating
                                                                               to the interlocutory proceedings;
                       of 7 February 2001                                3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.99.
in Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos
Arinhos, Ld.a, and Others v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commission Decision 98/653/EC
— Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal — Natural
or legal persons — Act of direct and individual concern to                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     them — Admissibility)
                                                                                of 20 March 2001
                         (2001/C 150/43)                                 in Case T-52/99 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      — Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for
                                                                         damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on
                                                                         WTO rules — Misuse of powers — General principles of
                                                                                Community law)
In Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos Arinhos,
Ld.a, established in Lisbon, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola do
Monte da Aldeia, Ld.a, established in Lisbon, António José                                        (2001/C 150/44)
da Veiga Teixeira, residing in Coruche, Portugal, Sociedade
Agrı́cola Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA, established in
Almeirim, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola de Perescuma SA,
established in Almeirim, Sociedade Agrı́cola Couto de Fornil-                                (Language of the case: German)
hos SA, established in Moura, Portugal, Casa Agrı́cola da
Raposeira, Ld.a, established in Coruche, José de Barahona                In Case T-52/99 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Núncio, residing in Évora, Portugal, Prestase — Prestação de          Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, avocat, against
Serviços e Contabilidade, Ld.a, established in Lisbon, Sociedade         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Bor-
Agro-Pecuária da Herdade do Zambujal, Ld.a, established in              chardt and H. van Vliet) — application for for compensation
Palmela, Portugal, Francisco Luı́s Pinheiro Caldeira, residing in        for the loss which the applicant has allegedlysuffered as a
Campo Maior, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola Cabral de Ascen-              result of the Commission introducing, under Regulation (EC)
são, Ld.a, established in Horta dos Arcos, Serpa, Portugal,             No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed
Joaquim Inácio Passanha Braancamp Sobral, residing in Lisbon,           rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
represented by C. Botelho Moniz and J. Rôla Roque, of the                No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                   (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32), provisions which are alleged to conflict
supported by Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,                  with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and certain
A.C. de Seiça Neves and A.M. Gonçalves Monteiro), against                general principles of Community law — the Court of First
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                          Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
A.M. Alves Vieira and G. Berscheid, assisted by V. Airão,) —            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzá-
application for annulment of Article 2(a) of Commission                  lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emerg-                 20 March 2001, in which it:
ency measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal (OJ 1998 L 311,                    1.    Dismisses the action;
p. 23), inasmuch as it prohibits the dispatch from Portugal to
Spain and France of fighting bulls intended for cultural and
sporting events — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamb-             2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
er), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos                        Commission.
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 February 2001, in which
it:                                                                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.99.
1.    Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;


title: Case T-235/11: Action brought on 29 April 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/30

         Action brought on 29 April 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-235/11)
   2011/C 186/56
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 1023 final, of 18 February 2011, reducing assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the following project phases:

                           —

                           ‘Supply and assembly of track materials for the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Madrid-Lleida section’ (CCI No 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001)

                           —

                           ‘Madrid-Barcelona High-Speed Rail line. Lleida-Martorell section (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001)

                           —

                           ‘Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Approaches to Zaragoza’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003)

                           —

                           ‘Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Lleida-Martorell section. X-A sub-section (Olérdola — Avinypnet del Penedés)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007), and

                           —

                           ‘New High-Speed rail access to Levante. La Gineta–Albacete sub-section (Platform)’ (CCI No 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014).

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision, in respect of the corrections applied to the amendments expressly noted in the application, reducing the amount of the correction to EUR 27 047 647,00.

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article H(2) of Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p.1), as the Commission did not observe the period of three months, from the time of the hearing, for adopting the Decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging, in the case of supply contracts, an infringement, on account of incorrect application, of Article 20(2)(e) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) and, in the case of contracts for works and contracts for services the subject of correction, an infringement, on account of incorrect application, of Article 20(2)(f) of that Directive, since the contracting of additional services is a conceptually distinct matter from the amendment of a contract at the performance phase provided for by Spanish legislation in relation to public contracts and consequently such amendment does not fall within the scope of Directive 93/38.

               3.

               Third plea in law (in the alternative to the foregoing pleas and exclusively in the case of contracts for works and services the subject of correction), alleging an infringement of Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38, on the ground that all the requirements were met for the Spanish authorities to use the unpublicised negotiated procedure to award contracts for the additional works carried out in the five phases of the project affected by the correction.


title: Case F-96/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 February 2012 — Makaronidis v Commission

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 February 2012 — Makaronidis v Commission
   (Case F-96/11) (1)

   2012/C 126/55
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  No publication in the OJ.


title: Case C-362/08 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2008 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 June 2008 in Case T-141/05 Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/11

         Appeal brought on 7 August 2008 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 June 2008 in Case T-141/05 Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission
   (Case C-362/08 P)
   (2008/C 272/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter and annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005 (Article 54 of the Statutes of the Court of Justice);

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the appellant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance declared the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the decision of the Commission, which refused to grant the appellant access to certain documents relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 concerning the co-financing of a medical aid programme organised in Kazakhstan, inadmissible on the following grounds: the action for annulment was brought against a decision which merely confirms a previous decision not contested within the time-limit for initiating proceedings, and even if the contested decision were not merely confirmatory, it could also not be considered to be a decision against which, for the purposes of Regulation No 1049/2001, an action for annulment can be brought.
   The judgment contains both serious errors of law and of fact.
   First, as regards classifying the contested decision, the Court of First Instance failed to take into consideration that the notice which the Commission had sent to the appellant earlier by way of a response to a confirmatory application within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 should have been regarded as invalid, since it had not been written by the Secretary General of the Commission and did not provide grounds or instructions on legally recognised rights. Since, as a consequence, the reply had no legal effect, it would not have been possible to bring an action for annulment against it. Therefore, only the contested decision — in other words, the Commission's reply to the appellant's new application — can be considered to be a final notice, which, in contrast to the position taken by the Court of First Instance, was actually sent following a fresh and complete examination of the situation by the Commission. Consequently, the contested decision cannot ‘simply be confirmatory’, since a measure that has no legal effect cannot be confirmed. However, regrettably, the Court of First Instance failed to examine the legal validity of the earlier Commission notice, which led to the wrong classification of the contested decision of the Commission.
   Second, the Court of First Instance's claim that the contested decision constitutes a reply to an initial application within the meaning of Regulation No 1049/2001 and could, for that reason, not be considered to be a decision against which an action for annulment can be brought, is based on a wrong interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The Court of First Instance overlooked that it is possible, but not obligatory under that regulation to make a confirmatory application. Taking that into consideration, and in the light of the Commission's hostile attitude throughout the entire preparatory phase, the appellant was no longer under an obligation to make a confirmatory application. In the course of the proceedings, the appellant requested that a reference to the nature of the regulation be added to the minutes of the hearing, since those minutes were incomplete in this respect. By refusing that request to make a correction to the minutes of the hearing, the Court of First Instance also committed a procedural error.


title: Case C-110/11: Order of the President of the Court of 17 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Minister van Financiën v G. in ‘t Veld

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Minister van Financiën v G. in ‘t Veld
   (Case C-110/11) (1)

   2011/C 232/40
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case T-477/04: Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-477/04)
   (2005/C 69/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 December 2004 by Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001, established in Brande (Denmark), represented by C. Barrett Christiansen, lawyer.
   TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corporation), established in Tokyo (Japan), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision R 364/2003-1 of 7 October 2004 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark TDK for goods in class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear) — application number 1214675

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               TDK Kabushiki Kaisha

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Community and national word and figurative marks TDK for goods in Class 9 (apparatus for recording etc.)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration denied

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Article 8 paragraph 5 of Council Regulation No 40/94 does not apply in this case.


title: Case F-5/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2011 — Mariën v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2011 — Mariën v Commission
   (Case F-5/11) (1)

   2012/C 138/101
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 30.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 2000 in Case C-216/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Article 9 — Minimum price — Manufactured tobacco)

text:
C 372/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.12.2000
Sardegna Lines — Servizi Marittimi della Sardegna SpA                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
established in Cagliari, Italy, represented by F. Caruso, U. Iacca-
rino, B. Carnevale and C. Caruso, of the Naples Bar, with an
address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of F. Caruso,                                      (Sixth Chamber)
2A Rue Van Moer (C-105/99) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and S. Dragone) —
application for annulment, in Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99,                                        of 19 October 2000
of Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October 1997
concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia (Italy) to
shipping companies in Sardinia (OJ 1998 L 20, p. 30) and, in
                                                                          in Case C-216/98: Commission of the European Communi-
Case C-15/98, of the letter of 14 November 1997 by which
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
the Commission notified the Italian Republic of its decision to
initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) regarding aid to the shipping
sector (loans/leases at concessionary conditions for the acqui-           (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC
sition, conversion and repair of vessels): amendment of aid                 — Article 9 — Minimum price — Manufactured tobacco)
scheme under C 23/96 (ex NN 181/95) (OJ 1997 C 386, p. 6)
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and                                         (2000/C 372/03)
F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the Italian Republic’s application in
      respect of the letter of 14 November 1997 by which the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      Commission notified the Italian Republic of its decision to                            in the European Court Reports)
      initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC
      Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) regarding aid to the shipping
      sector (loans/leases at concessionary conditions for the acqui-     In Case C-216/98: Commission of the European Communities
      sition, conversion and repair of vessels): amendment of aid         (Agents: M. Condou-Durande and E. Traversa) v Hellenic
      scheme under C 23/96 (ex NN 181/95);                                Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos, and N. Dafniou) —
                                                                          application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintaining
                                                                          in force legislative provisions which require minimum retail
                                                                          selling prices for manufactured tobacco to be determined by
2.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October 1997              ministerial decree, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      concerning aid granted by the Region of Sardinia (Italy) to         obligations under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of
      shipping companies in Sardinia;                                     27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which
                                                                          affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995
                                                                          L 291, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          J.-P. Puissochet, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
3.    In Case C-15/98, orders the Italian Republic and the Com-           R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
      mission of the European Communities to bear their own costs;        Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 19 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislative
4.    In Case C-105/99, orders the Commission of the European                   provisions which require minimum retail selling prices for
      Communities to pay the costs.                                             manufactured tobacco to be determined by ministerial decree,
                                                                                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November
                                                                                1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
                                                                                consumption of manufactured tobacco;
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                          2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94: Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV v. Commission of the European Communities (Admissibility)

text:
25 . 3 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/ 11
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and D. P. M.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Barrington and K. Lenaerts, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                 of 6 February 1995
given a judgment on 2 February 1995, in which it:                    in Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête and Others v.
                                                                                European Investment Bank ( x )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the European                                      (Taxation of costs)
     Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X                                                  ( 95/C 74/21 )
     temporarily to the post of Language Adviser in the
     Danish Translation Division (Directorate-General for
     Translation and General Services);                                              (Language of the case: French)
2. orders the defendant to pay the costs.                            In Case T-460/93 DEP: Etienne Tête, residing at
                                                                     Caluire-et-Cuire ( France ), Jean-Pierre Raffin, residing at
                                                                     Paris, Felix Masola, residing at Villeurbanne ( France ),
0 ) OJ No C 34, 6 . 2 . 1993 .                                       Louis-Max Duplessy, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Marie-Louise Guigen, residing at Villeurbanne, Henri
                                                                     Chavaleyre, residing at Villeurbanne, Francois Meillasson,
                                                                     residing at Villeurbanne, Jean Margerand, residing at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Jean-Claude                Pagand, residing   at
                                                                     Villeurbanne, Henri Alloix, residing at Villeurbanne,
                                                                     Groupe des Elus Verts au Conseil Regional, established at
                                                                     Charbonnières-les-Bains ( France ), Collectif Auto-stop,
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             established at Lyon ( France ), Association Sauvegarde de
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              l'Ouest Lyonnais, established at Caluire-et-Cuire,
                                                                     represented by Jean-Marc Bazy, of the Lyon Bar, with an
                      of 23 January 1995                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV              Monique Wirion, 1 Place du Theatre v. European
      v. Commission of the European Communities ( J )                Investment Bank (Agents : L. La Marca and C. Turk ) —
                          (Admissibility)                            application for the taxation of costs following the order of
                                                                     the Court of First Instance of 26 November 1993 in Case
                           ( 95/C 74/20                              T-460/93 Tête and Others v. European Investment Bank —
                                                                     the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                     Composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, A.
              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     Saggio, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili,
                                                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 February
In Case T-84/94 : Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV,              1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
established in Bonn ( Germany), represented by Joachim
Müller, Rechtsanwalt of Munich, with an address for                  the total amount ofthe costs recoverable by the defendant in
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean Wagener                 Case T-460/93 is set at Bfr 220 000.
and Alain Rukavina, 10A Boulevard de la Foire, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : M. J.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 339 , 22 . 12 . 1992 .
Jonczy and N. Lorenz ) — application for the annulment of
the Commission's decision of 4 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant's complaint seeking a declaration that the
German legislation on tax advisors infringes Articles 59 and
86 of the EC Treaty and that, by failing to take the necessary
applications in order to comply with the EC Treaty, the
Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Articles 5 and 90
of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth              Action brought on 19 January 1995 by Cantine dei Colli
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.                    Berici Cooperative A.R.L. against the Commission of the
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                      European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 23 January 1995 , the operative                                      ( Case T-6/95 )
part of which is as follows :                                                                      ( 95/C 74/22 )
1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . the applicant shall pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 1995
0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994.                                     by the Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop . A.R.L. , represented by
                                                                     Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
                                                                     Rue Albert I.


title: Case C-515/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Difference of treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin v Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS
   (Case C-515/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing for severance allowance to be paid to workers entitled on the date of termination of the employment relationship to a State retirement pension))
   (2015/C 138/13)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Poul Landin

      Defendant: Tekniq, acting on behalf of ENCO A/S — VVS

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, from providing that an employer must, upon termination of the employment relationship of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months’ salary respectively, unless the salaried employee is entitled to receive a State retirement pension upon termination of employment to the extent that that legislation is both objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment and labour market policy as well as constituting an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim. It is for the national court to satisfy itself that this is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case C-16/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Gudrun Schwemmer v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse (Social security — Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 — Family benefits — Anti-overlap rules — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 — Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 — Children residing in a Member State with their mother who fulfils the conditions for drawing family benefits there, and the father of whom, working in Switzerland and fulfilling, at first sight, the conditions for drawing family benefits of the same type under Swiss legislation, refrains from applying for the grant of those benefits)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Gudrun Schwemmer v Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse
   (Case C-16/09) (1)

   (Social security - Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 - Family benefits - ‘Anti-overlap’ rules - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 - Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 574/72 - Children residing in a Member State with their mother who fulfils the conditions for drawing family benefits there, and the father of whom, working in Switzerland and fulfilling, at first sight, the conditions for drawing family benefits of the same type under Swiss legislation, refrains from applying for the grant of those benefits)
   2010/C 346/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gudrun Schwemmer

      Defendant: Agentur für Arbeit Villingen-Schwenningen — Familienkasse

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended, and of Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159), as amended — Determination of the State required to grant family benefits — Rules against overlapping — Children residing in one Member State with their mother, who satisfies the conditions governing entitlement to family allowances, and whose father, resident in Switzerland and satisfying the conditions governing receipt of similar family allowances under Swiss law, intentionally refrains from seeking payment of those allowances in order to adversely affect his divorced wife — Kindergeld

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper interpretation of Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, and Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No. 1408/71, in the versions of those regulations as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of 13 April 2005, a right, which is not subject to conditions of insurance, employment or self-employment, to benefits under the legislation of a Member State in which one parent resides with the children in favour of which those benefits are granted cannot be partially suspended in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the former spouse, who is the other parent of the children concerned, would in principle be entitled to family benefits under the legislation of the State in which he is employed, either simply by virtue of the national legislation of that State, or in application of Article 73 of the said Regulation No 1408/71, but does not actually draw those benefits because he has not made an application for them.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-376/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali (Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges imposed on undertakings in the sector concerned — National legislation making operators of electronic communications subject to the payment of a charge intended to cover the operating costs of the national regulatory authorities)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/2

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio) — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali
   (Case C-376/12) (1)

   (Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges imposed on undertakings in the sector concerned - National legislation making operators of electronic communications subject to the payment of a charge intended to cover the operating costs of the national regulatory authorities)
   2013/C 377/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia dell' Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

      Intervening parties: Television Broadcasting System SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

      Re:

   Request for preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Administrative charges imposed on undertakings — Legislation providing that the national regularity authorities’ costs which are not financed by the State are to be imposed upon individual undertakings in the sector concerned according to the income they generate in respect of the sale of goods or the provision of relevant services

      Operative part of the order

   Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which undertakings providing electronic communications services or networks are liable to pay a charge intended to cover all the costs incurred by the NRA which are not financed by the State, the amount of which being determined according to the income received by those undertakings, provided that that charge is exclusively intended to cover the costs relating to the activities in paragraph (1)(a) of that provision, that the totality of the income obtained in respect of that charge does not exceed the total costs relating to those activities and that that charge is imposed upon individual undertakings in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner, which is for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case T-386/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Pegler v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — Deterrent effect)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Pegler v Commission
   (Case T-386/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - Deterrent effect)
   2011/C 145/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pegler Ltd (Doncaster, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson QC and A. Collinson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella and K. Daly, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Pegler Ltd participated in the infringement in the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine for which Pegler Ltd is jointly and severally liable under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 3,4 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia by order of that court of 2 February 1996 in the case of Immobiliare S.I.F. SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-42/96)

text:
No C 108 /4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 4 . 96
right to a fair hearing, the right of each party to be heard, the        impervious merely in theory, or impervious in theory and in
principle of the equality of both parties before the court and           practice ?
the obligation to give an adequate statement of reasons . In
any event, the Court of First Instance failed :                          (') OJ 1985 L 15 , p . 16 .
— to allow the appellants access to the data on the basis of
       which the Commission determined the basic exchange
       rates used in order to fix the weightings referred to in the      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile
       Regulations at issue and, consequently, to enable the             e Penale di Venezia by order of that court of 2 February
       appellants to submit observations in that regard ,                         1996 in the case of Immobiliare S.I.F. SpA v.
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
— to make an accurate and impartial examination of all the
       information relevant to the cases,                                                           ( Case C-42/ 96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/07
— to take into account many of the arguments adduced by
       the appellants,                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
— to give reasons — or, at any rate, to give adequate                    e Penale di Venezia ( Civil and Criminal Court, Venice ) of
       reasons — for its own decision, which is based on                 2 February 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
       assertions which not only disregard the points made by            on 13 February 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       the appellants, but are also, in more than one instance,          Immobiliare S.I. F. SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
       tautologous and/or subjective .                                   dello Stato, in which the Court is requested to :
The Court of First Instance has not only failed to comply                'give a ruling on the question concerning the application of
with obligations specifically incumbent upon it, but has                 Articles 4, 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
also, by making such a ruling, enabled a factual situation to            17 July 1969 (^ concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
persist which is contrary to Community law.                              capital, as amended by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of
                                                                         9 April 1973 ( 2 ) in the case brought by the plaintiff and on
(') OJ No L 383 of 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                              whether the application of those provisions precludes the
( 2 ) Ibid ., p . 9 .                                                    charging of any other taxation, in particular the taxes
( 3 ) Ibid ., p . 11 .                                                   charged by the Italian Registry Office, including Invim
                                                                         (Imposta communale sull'incremento di valore dei beni
                                                                         immobili — municipal tax on the increase in value of
                                                                         immovables ); if so, is the applicable rate 2 % or the reduced
                                                                         rate ?'
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 4 October 1995 in the                  (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 .
       case of V.A.G. Hàndlerbeirat e . V. v. SYD-Consult                ( 2 ) OJ 1973 L 103 , p . 15 .
                           ( Case C-41 /96 )
                             ( 96/C 108 /06 )
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 1996 by the Federal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht                                           European Communities
( Regional Court) Hamburg of 4 October 1995 , which was                                               Case C-46/96 )
received at the Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of V.A.G. Hàndlerbeirat e.V.                                           ( 96/C 108/08 )
v . SYD-Consult on the following question:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                         European Communities on 15 February 1 996 by the Federal
 13 January 1994 in Case C-376/92 Metro SB-Grotëmàrkte
v. Cartier, is it compatible with Community law, in
                                                                         Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Rôder,
                                                                         Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic
particular with the principle of the unrestricted and uniform            Affairs .
application of Community law, if German national law
applies in such a way that proceedings for an injunction                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
restraining the distribution of products covered by a
selective distribution system exempted from application of               — annul Decision (K 95 ) 3319 final of the Commission of
Article 85 ( 1 ) by a block exemption of the Commission of                     29 November 1995 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
the European Communities (') may be brought against                            depreciation favouring German undertakings ( J ),
outsiders who obtain those products outside such a selective
distribution system only if — in addition to satisfying the              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 further requirements of Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz gegen den             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 unlauteren Wettbewerb ( Law against Unfair Competition,
UWG ) — the selective distribution system is impervious                  Infringement of the EC Treaty ( the constituent criteria
 ( liickenlos ), specific reference being made to the alternative        laid down in Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty are not
 of the selective distribution system being required to be               fulfilled ):


title: Case C-455/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/13

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-455/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-438/12 to T-441/12 and, in particular, in Case T-440/12, Moreda–Riviere Trefilerías S.A. v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in declaring inadmissible the plea in law relating to the infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the second request for inability to pay and, consequently, the admissibility of the action.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in evaluating the evidence or clearly distorting the evidence, failing to carry out a full review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, infringing the right to effective judicial protection and failing to state reasons.


title: Case T-123/17 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 10 April 2017 — Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte v ACER (Application for interim measures — Energy — Decision of ACER rejecting an application for leave to intervene in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/29

         Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 10 April 2017 — Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte v ACER
   (Case T-123/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Energy - Decision of ACER rejecting an application for leave to intervene in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated) - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 195/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Exaa Abwicklungsstelle für Energieprodukte AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: B. Rajal, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and E. Tremmel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of the decision of ACER of 17 February 2017 rejecting the application for leave to intervene lodged by the applicant in Case A-001-2017 (consolidated).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-109/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014  — Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2014 — Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte v Marenave Schiffahrts AG
   (Case C-109/14)
   2014/C 159/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

      Defendant: Marenave Schiffahrts AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Which calculation method is to be used to calculate a holding company’s (pro rata) input tax deduction in respect of input supplies connected with the procurement of capital for the purchase of shares in subsidiary companies, if the holding company subsequently (as intended from the outset) provides various taxable services to those companies?

               2.

               Does the provision on the consolidation of several persons into a single taxable person in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) preclude national legislation under which (firstly) only a legal person, but not a partnership, can be integrated into the undertaking of another taxable person (a so-called ‘Organträger’ (controlling company)) and which (secondly) requires that this legal person ‘is integrated into the undertaking of the Organträger’ in financial, economic and organisational terms (in the sense of a relationship of control and subordination)?

               3.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative: can a taxable person rely directly on the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-152/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof — Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais v Finanzamt Germersheim (Tax legislation — Income tax — Article 48 EEC (subsequently Article 48 EC, now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — National rules restricting recognition of rental income losses from immovable property situated in another Member State)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof — Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais v Finanzamt Germersheim
   (Case C-152/03) (1)

   (Tax legislation - Income tax - Article 48 EEC (subsequently Article 48 EC, now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) - National rules restricting recognition of rental income losses from immovable property situated in another Member State)
   (2006/C 131/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais

      Defendant: Finanzamt Germersheim
   Re:
   REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC — National legislation on personal income tax limiting the right to deduct rental income losses from immovable property and applying the negative tax progression clause only to those losses relating to property situated in the national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 48 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 48 of the EC Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit natural persons in receipt of income from employment in one Member State, and assessable to tax on their total income there, to have income losses relating to their own use of a private dwelling in another Member State taken into account for the purposes of determining the rate of taxation applicable to their income in the former state, whereas positive rental income relating to such a dwelling is taken into account.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 05.07.2003


               13.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/19

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 8 May 2007 in the case of HOB vín ehf v Faxaflóahafnir sf.
   (Case E-6/07)
   (2007/C 301/11)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 8 May 2007 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB vín ehf v Faxaflóahafnir sf., on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the levying of charges by a partnership owned by several municipalities, in connection with the import of alcoholic beverages from other EEA States through a port owned by the partnership, fall under the provisions of Articles 10, 11 or 14 of the EEA Agreement? The question is based on the premise that the operation of the port is not regarded in law as a public operation; the levying of the charges is based on an authorisation in law and the charges are to meet the cost of the services provided, together with a share of the joint operation of the port.

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is such that any of the abovementioned provisions of the EEA Agreement apply, does that provision preclude the levying of charges of the type referred to in the first question? The question is based on the premise that higher charges are imposed in connection with the import of alcoholic beverages than of non-alcoholic beverages, and that in Iceland alcoholic beverages are generally imported, inter alia from other EEA States.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2003 in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive 76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justification)

text:
C 112/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               10.5.2003
J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and R. Tricot): Application for                  Helga Kutz-Bauer and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, on the
annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of                         interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive
23 February 2000 determining in a particular case that an                     76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
application for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a               principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
specified amount and that there is no justification for remission             access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
of import duties in a separate amount, the Court (Fifth                       and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of                        (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                     Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                   er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,               J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
on 13 March 2003, in which it:                                                a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of 23 Febru-
      ary 2000 determining in a particular case that an application
      for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a specified
      amount and that there is no justification for remission of import
      duties in a separate amount in so far as it declares inadmissible       1.    Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on
      the amount of NLG 15 679 301,49 of the application for                        the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
      remission of import duties submitted by Cargill BV and referred               and women as regards access to employment, vocational
      to the Commission of the European Communities on 22 April                     training and promotion, and working conditions, must be
      1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands;                                       interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision of a
                                                                                collective agreement applicable to the public service which allows
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        male and female employees to take advantage of a scheme of
                                                                                part-time work for older employees where under that provision
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                       the right to participate in the scheme of part-time work applies
                                                                                only until the date on which the person concerned first becomes
                                                                                eligible for a retirement pension at the full rate under the
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                statutory old-age insurance scheme and where the class of
                                                                                persons eligible for such a pension at the age of 60 consists
                                                                                almost exclusively of women whereas the class of persons
                                                                                entitled to receive such a pension only from the age of
                                                                                65 consists almost exclusively of men, unless that provision is
                                                                                justified by objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                                grounds of sex.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 20 March 2003                                    2.    In the case of a breach of Directive 76/207 by legislative
                                                                                provisions or by provisions of collective agreements introducing
                                                                                discrimination contrary to that directive, the national courts are
in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                required to set aside that discrimination, using all the means at
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie
                                                                                their disposal, and in particular by applying those provisions
                   und Hansestadt Hamburg ( 1)
                                                                                for the benefit of the class placed at a disadvantage, and are not
                                                                                required to request or await the setting aside of the provisions
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                                by the legislature, by collective negotiation or otherwise.
Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
                                cation)
                           (2003/C 112/03)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-187/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary


No C 133/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-324/95 H                 from the register of Case C-324/95 : Commission of the
                        ( 96/C 133/44 )                            European Communities v. Ireland.
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 February 1996                                                   of 6 March 1996
in Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado v. Commission of                 in Case T-141/95 : Kirsten Schelbeck v. European
               the European Communities { l )                                                 Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials  — Annulment of decision of the Commission              (Officials — Remuneration — National allowances —
fixing the applicant's grade — Reinstatement following             Discontinuance of application of the rule against
            secondment at the official's request)                    overlapping — Scope of entitlement to reimbursement)
                        ( 961C 133/45 )                                                      ( 96/C 133/46 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T- 1 4 1/95 , Kirsten Schelbeck, an official of the
                                                                   European Parliament, residing at Luxembourg, represented
                                                                   by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Véronique
In Case T-15/95 : Nuno do Paço Quesado, an official of the         Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ., 1 Rue
Trier ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and               Glesener, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter
Véronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for       and Jannis Pantalis ) — application for the annulment of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson           decision of the European Parliament of 1 December 1994,
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European                adopted pursuant to a decision discontinuing the
Communities (Agents : Joseph Griesmar and Julian Currall )         application of Article 67 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations of
— application for the annulment of the Commission's                officials of the European Communities to certain
decision of 1 March 1994 fixing the applicant's grade, at the      allowances provided for by Danish legislation, whereby the
time of his reinstatement in the Commission's Translation          applicant was refused reimbursement of the amounts
Service following secondment at his request, as LA 5 , step 1 ,    deducted from her remuneration pursuant to that provision
with seniority from 1 April 1994 — the Court of First              for the period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993 —
Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of H. Kirschner,              the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,                A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28             Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
February 1996 , in which it:                                       has given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                   1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
1 , dismisses the application;                                         1 December 1 994 refusing to reimburse to the applicant
                                                                       the amounts deducted from her remuneration for the
                                                                       period from 1 November 1987 to 30 April 1993
                                                                       pursuant to Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations of
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        officials of the European Communities;
                                                                   2 , orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay
(M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                          the costs of the applicant.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-297/95 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment)

text:
8 . 2 . 97            i EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 40/5
Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given          1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it has ruled:                    prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
1 . The first indent of Article 7 (2) of Council Directive                  9 1 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste
       86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                                water treatment, the Federal Republic of Germany has
       coordination of the laws of the Member States relating              failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 9 of that
       to self-employed commercial agents must be                           Directive;
      interpreted as meaning that, where a commercial agent
      is responsible for a geographical area , he is entitled to      2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
      commission on transactions concluded with customers                   costs .
      belonging to that area, even if they were concluded
       without any action on his part.                                (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
2 . Article 7 (2) of Directive 86/653/EEC must be
       interpreted to the effect that the meaning of the term
       'customer belonging to that area ' must be determined,
      where the customer is a legal person, by the place
      where the latter actually carries on its commercial
      activities. Where a company carries on its commercial                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      activity in various places, or where the agent operates                                  ( Fifth Chamber )
       in several areas, other factors may be taken into
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
      account to determine the centre of gravity of the
       transaction effected, in particular the place where            in     Case     C-302/95 Commission of the             European
       negotiations with the agent took place or should, in                           Communities v. Italian Republic (')
       the normal course of events, have taken place, the
      place where the goods were delivered and the place              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
       where the establishment which placed the order is                 Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment)
       located.                                                                                ( 97/C 40/ 10 )
(■) OJ No C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                In Case C-302/95 : Commission of the European
                          (Fifth Chamber)                             Communities ( Agents: Dominique Maidani and Laura
                       of 12 December 1996
                                                                      Pignataro ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ,
                                                                      assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a
in      Case C-297/95 Commission of the European                      declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations or
         Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations —                   Council Directive 91 /271/EEC of 21 May 1991
   Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment)                concerning urban waste water treatment ( OJ No L 135 ,
                                                                      30 . 5 . 1991 , p. 40 ) or, in any event, by not notifying the
                            ( 97/C 40/09 )                            Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                      fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under the EC
                  (Language of the case: German)                      Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
                                                                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
            published in the European Court Reports)                  Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                      gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it:
In Case C-297/95 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) v. Federal                     1 . declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and Bernd                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                 with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991
 adopt within the period prescribed the measures necessary                  concering urban waste water treatment, the Italian
to comply with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment ( OJ No                        Article 19 of that Directive;
 L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p. 40 ), the Federal Republic of
 Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.               2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
 ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,             (■) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in which it:


title: Case C-367/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Baxter Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Baxter Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   (Case C-367/07)
   (2007/C 247/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Baxter Spa

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case C-611/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2015 by L’Oréal SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2015 in Case T-426/13 L’Oréal v EUIPO

   (Case C-611/15 P)
   (2016/C 314/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: L’Oréal SA (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Cosmética Cabinas, S.L.
   By order of 16 June 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered L’Oréal SA to bear its own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2004 in Case C-168/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 89/665/EEC and 95/63/EC — Incomplete transposition — Additional adjustment period)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 September 2004
   in Case C-168/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 89/665/EEC and 95/63/EC - Incomplete transposition - Additional adjustment period)
   (2004/C 273/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-168/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: I. Martínez del Peral) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fragua Gadea) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 11 April 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C W.A Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur) Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               By providing, in Article 1 of the sole transitional provision of Royal Decree No 1215/1997 of 18 July 1997 laying down the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers, for an additional adjustment period for work equipment already provided to workers at the undertaking and/or establishment prior to 27 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (89/655/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995.

               2)

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case C-320/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker (Approximation of laws — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 4(4)(g) — Trade marks — Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark — Refusal of registration or invalidation — Concept of ‘bad faith’ of the applicant — Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/36

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker
   (Case C-320/12) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(4)(g) - Trade marks - Conditions for obtaining and continuing to hold a trade mark - Refusal of registration or invalidation - Concept of ‘bad faith’ of the applicant - Whether the applicant knows of the existence of a foreign mark)
   2013/C 225/62
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte. Ltd

      Defendant: Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Refusal of registration or invalidity of a trade mark — Concept of bad faith — Applicant who knew or should have known of a foreign trade mark when filing the application for registration — Cancellation of the registration of a plastic milk bottle as a trade mark on the ground that the applicant knew at the time of filing his application of the earlier similar mark used abroad by a competing company

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘bad faith’, within the meaning of that provision, is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be given a uniform interpretation in the European Union.

               2.

               Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to permit the conclusion that the person making the application for registration of a trade mark is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision, it is necessary to take into consideration all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration. The fact that the person making that application knows or should know that a third party is using a mark abroad at the time of filing his application which is liable to be confused with the mark whose registration has been applied for is not sufficient, in itself, to permit the conclusion that the person making that application is acting in bad faith within the meaning of that provision.

               3.

               Article 4(4)(g) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow Member States to introduce a system of specific protection of foreign marks which differs from the system established by that provision and which is based on the fact that the person making the application for registration of a mark knew or should have known of a foreign mark.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case C-501/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Direct insurance other than life assurance and direct life assurance — Directives 92/49/EEC and 2002/83/EC — Portfolio transfer system — Right to cancel — Admissibility)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-501/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Direct insurance other than life assurance and direct life assurance - Directives 92/49/EEC and 2002/83/EC - Portfolio transfer system - Right to cancel - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 235/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to fulfil obligations resulting from Article 12(6) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and Article 14(5) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) — National legislation which is discriminatory towards insurers in other Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.