title: Case C-449/00: Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33
      of the Statute of the Court of Justice:                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgment, inasmuch as the Court of First
            Instance declared inadmissible the head of claim             (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
                                                                         (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
            alleging infringement of the third and fourth para-
            graphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of lax, inasmuch as the contested
            judgment does not accept that the Commission
            committed a manifest error of assessment;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of law, inasmuch as the Court of              Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
            First Instance held that the appellant had not               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
            established any manifest error of assessment in the                                     of Luxembourg
            context of the comparison of his merits with those
            of other officials, more particularly Mr G;                                             (Case C-450/00)
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgement, inasmuch as the Court of First                                      (2001/C 45/22)
            Instance decided that there had been no breach of
            the principles of equal treatment and fairness in the
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
            present case.
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         Kirchberg.
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         the Court should:
                         (Case C-449/00)                                 (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
                          (2001/C 45/21)                                       trative measures, including provisions imposing penalties,
                                                                               which are necessary in order to comply with Directive
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of                       of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, of                      regard to the processing of personal data and on the
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service                free movement of such data (1), the Grand Duchy of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its                Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                       under Article 32 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures, including provisions imposing penalties, which
      are necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/46/EC           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
      regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
      movement of such data (1), the French Republic has failed          (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
      to comply with its obligations under Article 32 of that            (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
      directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État Mobistar SA v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek (Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Telecommunications services — Directive 90/388/EEC — Article 3c — Lifting of all restrictions — Municipal taxes on transmission pylons, masts and antennae for GSM)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État Mobistar SA v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek (1)

   (Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Telecommunications services - Directive 90/388/EEC - Article 3c - Lifting of all restrictions - Municipal taxes on transmission pylons, masts and antennae for GSM)
   (2005/C 271/11)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decisions of 8 December 2003, received at the Court on 23 December 2003, in the proceedings between Mobistar SA (C-544/03) v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA (C-545/03) v Commune de Schaerbeek — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) must be interpreted as not precluding the introduction, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communications infrastructures used to carry on activities provided for in licences and authorisations, which applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States and affects in the same way the provision of services within one Member State and the provision of services between Member States.

               2.

               Tax measures applying to mobile communications infrastructures are not covered by Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as amended, with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996, except where those measures favour, directly or indirectly, operators which have or have had exclusive or special rights to the detriment of new operators and appreciably affect the competitive situation.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.


title: Case T-490/11: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — Bena Properties v Council

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Action brought on 15 September 2011 — Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-490/11)
   2011/C 331/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul (i) Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) the subsequent Implementing Decisions 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011 and 2011/367/CFSP of 23 June 2011 in so far as they include its name in the list of persons and entities referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and the subsequent measures implementing it (Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 and corrigendum to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 published on 24 June 2011), in so far as those measures concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-433/11, Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011, p. 14.


title: Case F-94/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Bowles v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Members of the Staff Committee — Remuneration — Salary — Additional increase in salary — Eligibility)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/92

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Bowles v ECB
   (Case F-94/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - ECB staff - Members of the Staff Committee - Remuneration - Salary - Additional increase in salary - Eligibility))
   (2016/C 048/103)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini, S. Camilleri and M. López Torres, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 25 February 2014 not to grant an additional salary increase for 2014 to Mr Bowles;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3)

               The European Central Bank shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Bowles.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 49.


title: Case T-490/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour — Decision not to raise objections — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case — Lack of urgency — Weighing of the interests)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission
   (Case T-490/10 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Compensation for the additional production costs of certain power plants arising from the public service obligation to produce certain volumes of electricity out of indigenous coal and implementation of a ‘preferential dispatch mechanism’ in their favour - Decision not to raise objections - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Weighing of the interests)
   2011/C 152/42
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Endesa, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Endesa Generación, SA (Seville, Spain) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, an order for the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4499 of 29 September 2010 relating to State aid No N 178/2010 notified by the Kingdom of Spain in the form of a public service compensation linked to a preferential dispatch mechanism in favour of electricity power plants which use indigenous coal

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               E.ON Generación, SL, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico SA and the Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón are granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.

               2.

               The order of the President of the General Court of 3 November 2010 in Case T-490/10 R Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission, not published in the ECR, is cancelled.

               3.

               A period shall be fixed for Endesa, SA, Endesa Generación, SA, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to request that certain confidential information in the file and in the present order be excluded from communication to the parties referred to in point 1 of this operative part and to provide, for the purposes of that communication, a non-confidential version of the documents in the file and of the present order.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-313/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Warszawie by order of that court of 22 June 2005 in Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Warszawie by order of that court of 22 June 2005 in Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie
   (Case C-313/05)
   (2005/C 281/10)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyny w Warszawie (Regional Administrative Court, Warsaw), Poland of 22 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Maciej Brzeziński and Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie (Director of the Customs Chamber in Warsaw) on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 25 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which prohibits customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect between Member States, prohibit a Member State from applying Article 80 of the Ustawa o Podatku Akcyzowym (Polish Law on Excise Duty) of 23 January 2004 (Dziennik Ustaw (Official Journal of the Republic of Poland) No 29, heading 257, as amended) where excise duty is charged on the purchase of any car, irrespective of its place of origin prior to its initial registration in Poland?

               2.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, allow a Member State to impose excise duty on second-hand cars imported from other Member States without charging such duty on the sale of second-hand cars already registered in Poland, where the excise duty has been imposed, under Article 80 of the Polish Law on Excise Duty, on all cars not registered in Poland?

               3.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, allow a Member State to impose on second-hand cars imported from other Member States excise duty at a variable rate depending on the vehicle's age and engine capacity, which is laid down in the Polish implementing order (Article 7 of the Rozporządzenie Ministra Finansów w Sprawie Obniżenia Stawek Podatku Akcyzowego (Order of the Minister for Finance on the lowering of the rates of excise duty) of 22 April 2004 — Dziennik Ustaw No 87, heading 825, as amended), where the duty on the sale of second-hand cars in Poland is calculated according to a similar formula before their initial registration in Poland and this duty subsequently affects the price of that car when it is resold?

               4.

               Does Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, under which quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are to be prohibited between Member States — and also having regard to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products — prohibit a Member State from maintaining in force Article 81 of the Polish Law on Excise Duty, under which persons effecting intra-Community acquisition of passenger cars not registered in Poland in accordance with the provisions relating to road traffic are required, after importing them into Poland, to submit a simplified declaration to the head of the relevant customs office within five days of the intra-Community acquisition?


title: Case T-235/17: Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/39

         Action brought on 20 April 2017 — Dometic Sweden v EUIPO (MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY)
   (Case T-235/17)
   (2017/C 195/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dometic Sweden AB (Solna, Sweden) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MOBILE LIVING MADE EASY’ — Application for registration No 14 952 592

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2017 in Case R 1832/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision with respect to the goods and services applied for, for which the decision was upheld;

               —

               annul the EUIPO’s examination dated 10 August 2016 concerning the registrability of the application;

               —

               refer the case back to the EUIPO in order to amend its decision;

               —

               decide on the costs for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-397/06: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-397/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/55)

      Language of the case: Estonian

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Case T-27/98: Albert Nardone v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos and other substances — Rate of permanent partial invalidity — Irregularity of the opinion of the medical board)

text:
8.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                       of 15 December 1999
                                                                          in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98: Government of the
in Case T-27/98: Albert Nardone v Commission of the                       Netherlands Antilles v Commission of the European
                    European Communities (1)                                                         Communities (1)
(Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos                  (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
and other substances — Rate of permanent partial invalidity               Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 — Regulation (EC)
      — Irregularity of the opinion of the medical board)                 No 2494/97 — Application for annulment — Admissibility
                                                                             — OCT Decision — Safeguard measure — Causal link)
                          (2000/C 102/41)                                                            (2000/C 102/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98: Government of the
In Case T-27/98: Albert Nardone, a former official of the                 Netherlands Antilles, represented by M. Slotboom and P.V.F.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at Piétrain              Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service at the
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure                  Chambers of M. Loesch, 11, Rue Goethe v Commission of the
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and P.L. Kuijper),
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4           supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) —
Rue Beck, v Commission of the European Communities                        application in Case T-32/98, for the annulment of Commission
(Agents: Julian Currall and Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application for           Regulation (EC) No 2352/97 of 27 November 1997 introdu-
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 May 1997                     cing specific measures in respect of imports of rice originating
concerning a request for acknowledgement of the applicant’s               in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 326, p. 21)
occupational disease and fixing his rate of permanent partial             and, in Case T-41/98, for the annulment of Commission
invalidity at 6 % — the Court of First Instance (Second                   Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of 12 December 1997 on the
Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and C.W.                    issuing of import licences for rice falling within CN code 1006
Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given            and originating in the overseas countries and territories
a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:                              under the specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 2352/97 (OJ 1997 L 343, p. 17) — the Court (Third
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and
                                                                          J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 May 1997 concerning
                                                                          given a judgment on 10 February 2000, in which it:
     the applicant’s request for acknowledgement of his occupational
     disease;
                                                                          1. Joins Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 for the purposes of the
                                                                               judgment;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          2. Annuls Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2352/97 of 27 Nov-
                                                                               ember 1997 introducing specific measures in respect of imports
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                               of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories;
                                                                          3. Annuls Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2494/97 of
                                                                               12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences for rice
                                                                               falling within CN code 1006 and originating in the overseas
                                                                               countries and territories under the specific measures introduced
                                                                               by Regulation (EC) No 2352/97;


title: Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Ireland and Others v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duty on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise duty — Whether the exemption complies with a Council decision of authorisation under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 — Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures — Legal certainty — Sound administration)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Ireland and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV) (1)

   (State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duty on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise duty - Whether the exemption complies with a Council decision of authorisation under Article 8(4) of Directive 92/81 - Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures - Legal certainty - Sound administration)
   2012/C 133/39
   Languages of the case: English, French and Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ireland (represented initially by D. O’Hagan and subsequently by E. Creedon, acting as Agents, and P. McGarry, Barrister) (Case T-50/06 RENV); French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents) (Case T-56/06 RENV); Italian Republic (represented by G. Aiello, G. De Bellis and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato) (Case T-60/06 RENV); Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by R. Denton and L. Martin Alegi, Solicitors) (Case T-62/06 RENV); and Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by J. Handoll and C. Waterson, Solicitors) (Case T-69/06 RENV)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy, in so far as it finds, or is based on the finding, that the exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production granted by the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic until 31 December 2003 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and in so far as it orders the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic to take all measures necessary to recover those exemptions from the beneficiaries to the extent that the latter did not pay excise duty at the rate of at least EUR 13,01 per 1 000 kg of heavy fuel oils;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ireland in Case T-50/06 RENV, by the French Republic in Case T-56/06 RENV, by the Italian Republic in Case T-60/06 RENV, by Eurallumina Spa in Case T-62/06 RENV and by Aughinish Alumina Ltd in Case T-69/06 RENV, including the costs of the application for interim measures in Case T-69/06 R.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-189/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Trier, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that court of 17 May 2000 in the case of Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              5.    Does the fact that two patents registered in different
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                   Contracting States stem from the same European patent
of 18 November 1997, in the case of 1) Boston Scientific                     application provide a sufficient connection for jurisdic-
Ltd, 2) Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life                 tion to be claimed under Article 6 in respect of a person
Systems Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis                        not domiciled in the state where litigation is pending
                             (UK) Ltd                                        against a defendant who is so domiciled where the
                                                                             allegations in that litigation are:
                         (Case C-186/00)
                                                                             a)    of infringment of both patents by the domiciled
                                                                                person;
                         (2000/C 233/27)
                                                                             b)    or infringement only of the patent in the state where
                                                                                litigation is pending by the domiciled person, but
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             the non-domiciled person is alleged to infringe the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                            other patent?
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 18 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2000, for           6.    Are the answers to any of the preceding questions
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Boston Scientific Ltd, 2)             different (and if so, which) if the proceedings are kort
Boston Scientific International B.V., 3) Scimed Life Systems                 geding proceedings in the Netherlands in respect of a
Inc. against 1) Cordis Corporation, 2) Cordis (UK) Ltd, on the               European patent and the designated state is other than
following questions:                                                         the Netherlands?
1.    In the case of patents granted pursuant to European
      applications pursuant to the European Patent Convention,
      are the provisions of Article 2 and/or 64 of the European
      Patent Convention provisions which govern jurisdiction
      in relation to particular matters (i.e. proceedings for
      infringement of such patents) within the meaning of
      Article 57 of the Brussels Convention?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
                                                                       Trier, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, is the effect that,
                                                                       court of 17 May 2000 in the case of Urszula Ruhr v
      notwithstanding any other provision of the Brussels
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
      Convention, proceedings for infringement of a patent
      granted pursuant to a European application can only be
      brought in the courts of the country in which the patent                                   (Case C-189/00)
      is registered?
                                                                                (2000/C 233/28)
3.    Where, under the national law of the state in which a
      patent is registered, the question of infringement of the
      patent depends upon the validity of the patent (so that,         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      where validity is in issue, the questions of infringement        European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social
      and validity would be tried together in the courts of the        Court) Trier, of 17 May 2000, which was received at the Court
      state):                                                          Registry on 22 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Urszula Ruhr v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on the following
                                                                       question:
      a)    do the courts of the state in which the patent is
            registered have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of
            both questions pursuant to Articles 16(4) and/or 19        Is the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
            of the Brussels Convention?                                No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                       security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                       moving within the Community (1), which was given by the
      b)    should the courts of the state in which the patent         Court of Justice in Case 40/76 Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für
            is not registered decline jurisdiction pursuant to         Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669, still authoritative even when it also
            Article 19?                                                indirectly affects the freedom of movement of a Member State
                                                                       national?
4.    Does article 24 enable a court not otherwise having
      jurisdiction in a matter to grant provisional relief in          (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
      circumstances where there are no proceedings seeking
      final relief pending or imminent before any court having
      jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention as to the
      substance of the matter?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 3 February 1995, in the case of The Queen against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abbas Radiom (Case C-111/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95             I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that              Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
court of 31 October 1994, in the case of Yamanouchi                      3 February 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Pharmaceutical Co . Ltd against the Comptroller-General of               Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                Patents, Designs and Trade Marks                                                  Abbas Radiom
                           ( Case C-1 10/95 )                                                   ( Case C-1 1 1 /95 )
                             ( 95/C 159/32 )                                                      ( 95 /C 159/33
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Justice , Chancery Division , Patents Court, of 31 October               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
1994 , which was received at the Court Registry on 3 April               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 February 1995 , which
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Yamanouchi                was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1994 , for a
Pharmaceutical Co . Ltd against the Comptroller-General of               preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, on the following                       Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
question:                                                                Abbas Radiom, on the following questions :
In the case of an application for a certificate under Council            1. (1)     In Article 8 of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning                     25 February 1964 on the coordination of special
the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for                   measures concerning the movement and residence of
medicinal products ( 1 ) in a particular Member State ( in casu,             foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
the United Kingdom ) in circumstances where:                                 public policy, public security or public health do the
                                                                             words 'the same legal remedies . . . as are available to
— a medicinal product was ( on 2 January 1993 ) the subject                  nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the
      of a first marketing authorization in the Community ( in               administration' refer ( a ) to specific remedies available in
      casu, in France ) which was obtained pursuant to Council               respect of decisions concerning entry by nationals of the
      Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the                          State concerned ( in casu, an appeal to an immigration
      approximation of provisions laid down by law,                          adjudicator) or „( b ) do they refer only to remedies
      regulation or administrative action relating to                        available in respect of acts of the administration
      proprietary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( as amended ) after              generally ( in casu, an application for judicial review)?
      1 January 1985 ,
                                                                             (2)    If the answer to ( 1 ) is (a ), do the words quoted
— the medicinal product was ( on 2 January 1993 )                            from Article 8 of Directive 64/22 1/EEC refer only to the
      protected by a valid basic patent in the Member                        legal remedies available to nationals of the State
      State,                                                                 concerned in the same circumstances ( in casu, refusal of
                                                                             entry on grounds of national security), or do they also
— at the date of submission of such application, marketing                   refer to the specific remedies available in analogous or
      authorization in the Member State had yet to be                        similar   circumstances      to   nationals   of  the   State
      obtained,                                                              concerned ; and, if so, how similar or analogous must the
                                                                             circumstances be ?
— application for a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1
      of Article 19 was submitted to the relevant national
      authority (namely the UK Patent Office ) within six                2 . In the light of the answer to question 1 , where a
      months of 2 January 1993 , as laid down in paragraph 2                 Community national is refused entry into the United
      of Article 19 ,                                                        Kingdom on grounds of national security does Article 8
                                                                             of Directive 64/22 1 /EEC require that national to have a
                                                                             right of appeal to an immigration adjudicator if, on the
is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92, and in particular
                                                                             correct construction of the relevant provisions of
Article 19 thereof, to be interpreted so as to allow the grant
                                                                             national law, a British national refused entry to the
of an SPC to the patentee in that Member State or must the
                                                                             United Kingdom on grounds of national security has a
provisions of Articles 3 ( b ), 8 and 9 concerning a valid
                                                                             right of appeal for the purpose of establishing that he is a
marketing authorization in the Member State also be                          British national and is therefore entitled to enter the
complied with ?
                                                                             United Kingdom irrespective of whether his presence in
                                                                             the United Kingdom is undesirable for reasons of
(M OJ No L 182 , 2 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                                      national security ?
( 2 ) OJ No 22 , 9 . 2 . 1965 , p . 369 .
                                                                         3.  Do the opening words of Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive
                                                                             64/22 1/EEC ('where there is no right of appeal to a court
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/ 18            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
     of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of               module' for the assembly of a data-processing machine,
     the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal              consisting of a housing with inter alia two disk-drives, as
     cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally to                     described in more detail in the grounds of the reference,
     Article 9 ( 2 )?                                                     is to be classified in subheading No 8471 93 59 either
                                                                          directly or pursuant to General Rule 3b as a ' storage
4 . Where a decision has been taken to exclude a                          unit', on the basis of the drives it contains ?
     Community national from the territory of a Member
     State other than his own on public policy or public              2.  If not :
     security grounds and the Community national has left
     that territory without there having been an appeal or                Is it correct to classify a product such as that described
     reference for an advisory opinion to an independent                  above as a 'part' ( of a data-processing machine ) under
     competent authority pursuant to Articles 8 or 9 of                   subheading No 8473 30 90 of the customs tariff
     Directive 64/22 1 /EEC, does that Community national                 provisions ?
     have a right of reference to an independent competent
     authority under Article 9 ( 2 ) if that national
     subsequently returns or seeks to return to the territory of
     the Member State CQncerned, in respect of:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
     ( a ) the refusal of an application for a residence permit;      van Beroep by order of that court of 9 December 1994 in the
           or                                                         case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v. Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                                Verzekeringsbank
     ( b ) the refusal of an application for entry; or
                                                                                ( Case C-126/95 )
     ( c ) a decision ordering expulsion ?                                                       ( 95/C 159/35 )
5 . Do the answers to question 4 vary according to                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     whether :                                                        European Communities by an order of the Centrale Raad
                                                                      van Beroep ( Court of last instance in social security matters )
     ( a ) the applicant has entered the territory of the             of 9 December 1994, which was received at the Court
           Member State before asking for a residence                 Registry on 13 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
           permit;                                                    case of A. Hallouzi-Choho v . Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                      Verzekeringsbank ( Board of the Social Insurance Bank ) on
     ( b ) the applicant has been expelled from the Member            the following question:
           State before he has asked for a residence permit, or
           has never asked for a residence permit;                    Should Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Cooperation Agreement
                                                                      between the EC and Morocco be interpreted as precluding
     ( c ) the earlier departure was as a result of a decision
           ordering expulsion, or of a threat of detention and
                                                                      imposing the requirement of Netherlands nationality on the
           expulsion and was followed by a decision to
                                                                      spouse — a member of the family within the meaning of
           exclude ?                                                  Article 41 ( 1 ) of the Agreement — of a Moroccan worker in
                                                                      order to obtain entitlement to transitional benefits within
                                                                      the meaning of the Netherlands Algemene Ouderdomswet
(M OJ No L 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964 , p. 850 .
                                                                      ( Law on Old Age )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 16 March                    Commerce, Lyon, by judgment of that court of 2 January
1995 in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG v.                         1995 , rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , in the case
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                         of Fontaine SA and Others v. Aqueducs Automobiles
                         ( Case C-121/95 )                                                             Sari
                           ( 95/C 159/34 )                                                     ( Case C-128/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/36 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 16 March             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April           Commerce ( Commercial Court), Lyon, of 2 January 1995 ,
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vobis                  rectified by judgment of 7 February 1995 , which was
Microcomputer AG v . Oberfinanzdirektion Miinchen                     received at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a
( Principal Revenue Office, Munich ) on the following                 preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Fontaine SA, 2 . Garage
questions :                                                           Laval SA, 3 . Fahy SA, 4 . Renault Lyon Ouest FLB
                                                                      Automobiles SA, 5 . Société de Diffusion Vallis Auto SA —
1 . Is the Common Customs Tariff (combined                            SDV, 6 . Horizon Sud SA v. Aqueducs Automobiles Sari on
     nomenclature ) to be interpreted as meaning that a 'basic        the following questions:


               30.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/28

         Action brought on 12 April 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-3/05)
   (2005/C 159/10)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 April 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Arne Torsten Andersen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by applying a requirement of residence in the county of Finnmark or in seven specified municipalities in the county of Troms for the entitlement of the Finnmark supplement to the family allowances, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 73 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; or, alternatively
               Declare that by applying said residence requirement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Act referred to at Point 2 of Annex V (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The case concerns a regional supplement to Norwegian family allowances, which is granted to persons responsible for the upbringing of children residing in the designated area.

               —

               Norwegian law requires that the grantee of the supplement reside in the designated area with their child. The supplement is not dependent on the location of the grantee's place of employment.

               —

               Article 29 EEA provides for the coordination of social security schemes in order to provide freedom of movement of workers and self-employed persons within the EEA.

               —

               Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 stipulates that an employed or self-employed person subject to the legislation of an EEA State and residing in another EEA State shall be entitled to the family benefits provided by the former EEA State as if they were residing therein.

               —

               Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 states that migrant workers shall enjoy the same social advantages as national workers.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1999 in Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Proceedings for interim relief - Suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - None)

text:
C 299/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             (Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
                           INSTANCE                                      gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established at
                                                                         Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
                         of 21 July 1999                                 mbH, established at Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established at Hohenberg (Austria), and
                                                                         Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established at Sondershau-
in Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH v Com-                        sen (Germany), represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich
           mission of the European Communities                           Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten, with an address for service
                                                                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
(Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee —                      v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Eric
Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of              Gippini Fournier and Walter Mölls) — application for suspen-
               a measure — Urgency — None)                               sion of operation or a stay of enforcement of Articles 3(d) and
                                                                         4 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
                        (1999/C 299/32)                                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (Case No IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999
                                                                         L 24, p. 1), as rectified by a decision of 6 November 1998,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        inasmuch as those measures impose on the applicants a fine
                                                                         payable within three months of notification of that decision
                                                                         — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
In Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in
                                                                         on 9 July 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Bremen (Germany), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of the
Brussels Bar, Ute Zinsmeister, Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf,
and John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt,                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by                 2. The costs are reserved.
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Wolf-Dieter Plessing
and Claus-Dieter Quassowski), v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for suspen-
sion of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC
of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134
— Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95,
p. 1), in so far as, in Articles 8 and 10, it imposes a fine of
EUR 13 750 000 on the applicant — the President of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 July 1999, the                                          INSTANCE
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 30 June 1999
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.                                               in Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health v Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of virginiamy-
                                                                         cin from the list of authorised additives — Directive
                                                                               70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (1999/C 299/34)
                          of 9 July 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik
Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities                           In Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health SA/NV, established in
                                                                         Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by Ian S. Forrester
(Competition — Payment of fine — Proceedings for interim                 QC, Elisabethann Wright, Barrister, and Mark Powell, Solicitor,
measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Stay                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of enforcement)                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by Asociación Nacional
                                                                         de Productores de Ganado Porcino and Asociación Española
                                                                         de Criadores de Vacuno de Carne, established in Madrid and
                        (1999/C 299/33)                                  Barcelona (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and
                                                                         Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, of the Madrid Bar, and by
                                                                         José Massaguer Fuentes and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
In Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-              Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established at Rosenheim                 Fédération Européenne des Fabricants d’Adjuvants pour la


title: Case T-28/12: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Adoption of a new regulation — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/17

         Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and Others v Council
   (Case T-28/12) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Adoption of a new regulation - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 164/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals (Kabil-Batam, Indonesia); Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd, (Singapore, Singapore); and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH (Dessau-Roβlau, Germany) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH and Sasol Germany GmbH.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals, Ecogreen Oleochemials (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Ecogreen Oleochemicals GmbH.

               4.

               Sasol Olefins & Surfactants and Sasol Germany shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-77/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2009 — Gowan Comercio Internacional e Servicos Limitada v Ministero della Salute

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2009 — Gowan Comercio Internacional e Servicos Limitada v Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-77/09)
   2009/C 102/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gowan Comercio Internacional e Servicos Limitada

      Defendant: Ministero della Salute

      Question referred

   In view of the fact that the conclusion of the technical and scientific assessment carried out by the Rapporteur State appears to be that the risk arising from the use of fenarimol is acceptable, is Directive 2006/134/EC, which significantly limited such use, valid?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-389/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Deutsche See-Bestattungs-GenossenschafteG v HauptzollamtKiel (‘Exciseduties — Exemption from tax on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Article8(1)(c) — The term“navigatio”’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-389/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG v Hauptzollamt Kiel
       (1)

   (‘Excise duties - Exemption from tax on mineral oils - Directive 92/81/EEC - Article 8(1)(c) - The term “navigation”’)
   (2004/C 106/23)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-389/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG, and Hauptzollamt Kiel – on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:
   Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils should be interpreted to mean that the term ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when that voyage is made for commercial purposes.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 by Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA against the order made on 15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-136/95 Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-437/98 P)

text:
23.1.1999           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/27
Ms Jouhki acted in accordance with the competition rules               (a) annul Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
contained in the notice of competition in producing the                      1995 concerning certain protective measures with
required evidence of her basic training and her                              regard to fishery products originating in Japan
professional training by means of a nurse's diploma. She                     (OJ L 80, 8.4.1995, p. 56) in so far as it affects
was therefore entitled to be admitted to competition                         fisheries products in transit to the Community at
COM/B/973.                                                                   the time of publication of the decision,
The notice of competition was drawn up by the                          (b) order the European Community to pay
Commission alone and the candidates had no opportunity                       compensation in respect of the damage incurred
to influence its content or the expressions and wording                      by the appellant as detailed in the second indent
used in it.                                                                  of the application for annulment and
                                                                             compensation before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance (1),
As a Finnish candidate, Ms Jouhki should have been able
to be confident that the Finnish language notice would be
expressed and interpreted in accordance with the Finnish               (c)   order the Commission to pay the costs incurred
language. That confidence must be protected.                                 by the appellant in the proceedings before both
                                                                             Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice,
In accordance with a general principle of law, the notice
must be interpreted against its author, the Commission.            Ð in the alternative: in the event that final judgment is
                                                                       not given in the terms requested under the second
                                                                       indent owing to the status of the proceedings:
                                                                       (a) annul the contested decision in the terms set out
                                                                             under letter a) of the preceding indent,
Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 by Industria del Frío
Auxiliar Conservera SA against the order made on
15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   (b) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                        for it to deal with the application for
T-136/95 Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA v.                        compensation;
        Commission of the European Communities
                    (Case C-437/98 P)
                                                                       (c)   order the Commission to pay the costs incurred
                      (1999/C 20/45)                                         by the appellant in the proceedings before both
                                                                             the Court of First Instance and the Court of
                                                                             Justice to the extent to which they relate to the
                                                                             application for annulment, and direct that the
An appeal against the order made on 15 September 1998
                                                                             decision on the costs of the application for
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             compensation is a matter for the Court of First
the European Communities in Case T-136/95 Industria del
                                                                             Instance.
Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA v. Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
1998 by Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA,
                                                                   Ð In the further alternative: in the event that final
a     Spanish    company,      represented     by    Ignacio
                                                                       judgment is not given in the terms requested in the
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of
                                                                       second indent owing to the status of the proceedings,
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 Rue
                                                                       it to deal with both the application for annulment and
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                       the application for compensation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
    15 September 1998 in Case T-136/95;
                                                                   Ð Error in law in holding that a preliminary ruling by
                                                                       the Court of Justice rejecting the grounds of alleged
                                                                       invalidity     justifies  dismissing    the    applicant's
Ð give final judgment in the case and:                                 applications and discontinuing the proceedings. A
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
     judgment of the Court of Justice delivered in the                 Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
     context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (2)               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     rejecting grounds of alleged invalidity does not                                             Luxembourg
     constitute in the strict sense a declaration that the                                     (Case C-438/98)
     Community measure is valid Ð that is, compatible
     with the EC Treaty Ð but rather, where there is no                                         (1999/C 20/46)
     declaration of invalidity, merely an indication by the
     Court that its examination has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity' of the measure,            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     from which it follows that there is nothing to prevent            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     it from being declared invalid in a future judgment on            Communities on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of
     other grounds.                                                    the European Communities, represented by Antonio
                                                                       Aresu, of its Legal Service, and Nicola Yerrell, a national
                                                                       civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right              Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
     to obtain effective legal protection owing to the failure         Kirchberg.
     by the Court of First Instance sufficiently to take into
     consideration, and in any event sufficiently to                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
     examine, each and every one of the appellant's claims             that the Court should:
     in the light of the new information presented to it
     after the written stage; manifest distortion of such
     evidence: in its Decisions 97/513/EC (3), 97/515/EC (4)           (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
     and 97/516/EC (5), the Commission considered that an                    communicate to the Commission the laws,
     alternative measure to protect the interests of goods in                regulations and administrative measures necessary in
     transit upon the entry into force of a ban on imports                   order to comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of
     requiring such goods to undergo special analyses did                    20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC
     not involve any risk to public health.                                  on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women in occupational social
                                                                             security schemes (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements: at the                        Treaty; and
     sitting of the full Court of 11 January 1996, the case
     was assigned to a Chamber of five judges. The order
                                                                       (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     of 2 May 1996 granting leave for the plea of
                                                                             costs.
     inadmissibility brought by the Commission to be
     considered at the same time as the substance of the
     case was adopted by the Second Chamber, Extended                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Composition. The appellant expressed surprise at the              Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the
     application for the case to be assigned to a Chamber              directive expired on 1 July 1997.
     composed of three judges, but did not object. The
     appellant considers that the Second Chamber,
                                                                       (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
     composed of three judges, is not competent to adopt
                                                                       (2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.
     the order appealed against, by which the applications
     for annulment and compensation were dismissed and
     the proceedings thus deemed closed.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 24.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997, in Case
    C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-278/97 (1)
(3) Commission Decision 97/513/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning                                    (1999/C 20/47)
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery
    products originating in Bangladesh (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,
    p. 46).
(4) Commission Decision 97/515/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
    products originating in India (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997, p. 52).         from the register of Case C-278/97 (Reference for a
(5) Commission Decision 97/516/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Wrangler Germany GmbH v. Metro Selbstbedienungs-
    products originating in Madagascar (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,            Groûhandel GmbH.
    p. 53).
                                                                       (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2002 in Case C-47/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))

text:
23.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/3
court between Ángel Barreira Pérez and Instituto Nacional                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la
Seguridad Social (TGSS), on the interpretation of Article 1(r)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
and (s) and Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                            of 3 October 2002
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),                   in Case C-47/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President                                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal
3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                                    of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls
                                                                                (PCB/PCT))
                                                                                (2002/C 289/05)
1.    The proper construction of Article 1(r) of Council Regulation                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
      social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      persons and to members of their families moving within the                             in the European Court Reports)
      Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
      (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, is that additional
      periods such as those provided for by Spanish legislation,
      attributed when pension rights are awarded in order to take
                                                                          In Case C-47/01, Commission of the European Communities
      account of rights which were in the course of being acquired
                                                                          (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
      under previous old-age insurance schemes which have now             Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      been discontinued, are to be regarded as periods of insurance       draw up, or in any event to communicate to the Commission,
      within the meaning of that regulation.                              the plan, outline and summary of the inventory provided for
                                                                          in Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
                                                                          16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
                                                                          biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
                                                                          L 243, p. 31), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
2.    The proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) of Regulation           obligations under those provisions of the directive, the Court
      No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
                                                                          Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
      No 118/97, is that additional periods such as those provided
                                                                          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      for by Spanish legislation, attributed when pension rights are
                                                                          given a judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it:
      awarded in order to take account of rights which were in the
      course of being acquired under previous old-age insurance
      schemes which have now been discontinued, are to be taken           1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed
      into account in the calculation of the actual amount of the               period, a summary of the inventories of equipment with PCB
      pension.                                                                  volumes of more than 5 dm3, a plan for the decontamination
                                                                                and/or disposal of the inventoried equipment and the PCBs
                                                                                contained therein, and an outline for the collection and
                                                                                subsequent disposal of equipment which is not subject to
                                                                                inventory in accordance with Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council
                                                                                Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
                                                                                polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/
                                                                                PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                under those provisions of that directive;
                                                                          2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.