title: Case T-156/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/23

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
   (Case T-156/13)
   2013/C 147/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p. 55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits six grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give proper notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of the fundamental right to property.
   The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to properly identify the applicant as the subject of the decision and regulation and also to properly identify the applicant in its letter of notification, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests by the applicant to confirm the identification, to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents were not replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a front company controlled by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that control of the applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, by restricting the ability of the applicant to form contracts, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.


title: Case C-305/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan v Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting — Failure to implement EU law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/11

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare — Romania) — Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan v Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare
   (Case C-305/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - National legislation according to which prior authorisation is required for the organisation of a public meeting - Failure to implement EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))
   (2015/C 146/17)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Satu Mare

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sergiu Lucian Băbăşan

      Defendant: Inspectoratul Judtean de Politie Satu Mare

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) by its decision of 7 March 2014.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-485/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Claudia Gualtieri v European Commission (Appeal — Seconded national expert — Daily subsistence allowance — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Claudia Gualtieri v European Commission
   (Case C-485/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Seconded national expert - Daily subsistence allowance - Principle of equal treatment)
   2010/C 148/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 rejecting the applicant’s claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to national experts on secondment, as amended.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Gualtieri to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-297/06: Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/24

         Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-297/06)
   (2006/C 212/40)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and I. Khatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/85/EC (1) of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 30 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 306, 22.11.2003, p. 1.


title: Case F-26/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CN v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CN v Parliament
   (Case F-26/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment))
   (2015/C 155/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CN (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Alves, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision rejecting the request for assistance brought by the applicant for psychological harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament implicitly rejecting CN’s request for assistance of 13 February 2013;

               2)

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 18 December 2013 dismissing CN’s complaint of 26 August 2013;

               3)

               Orders the European Parliament to pay CN the sum of EUR 45  785,29;

               4)

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CN.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 56.


title: Case C-523/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Article 45 TFEU — Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old-age benefits — Principle of non-discrimination — Worker who, prior to retirement, has participated, in a Member State, in a part-time work scheme for older employees — Consideration for entitlement to an old-age pension in another Member State)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht — Germany) — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd
   (Case C-523/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Article 45 TFEU - Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old-age benefits - Principle of non-discrimination - Worker who, prior to retirement, has participated, in a Member State, in a part-time work scheme for older employees - Consideration for entitlement to an old-age pension in another Member State))
   (2015/C 065/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Walter Larcher

      Respondent: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, precludes legislation of a Member State under which entitlement to an old-age pension following participation in a part-time work scheme for older employees is conditional on that scheme having taken place exclusively under the laws of that Member State;

               2.

               The principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the recognition in a Member State of participation in a part-time work scheme for older employees which took place in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, it is necessary to undertake a comparative examination of the conditions for the application of such schemes under the legislation of those two Member States, in order to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the differences identified are liable to compromise attainment of the social policy objectives pursued by the legislation at issue in the former Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-577/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Supplementary protection certificate — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient — Medicinal products placed on the market in succession — Combination of active ingredients — Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient — Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent — Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-577/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Supplementary protection certificate - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Medicinal products containing in whole or in part the same active ingredient - Medicinal products placed on the market in succession - Combination of active ingredients - Active ingredient previously marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient - Conditions for obtaining several certificates on the basis of the same patent - Modification of the active ingredients of a basic patent))
   (2015/C 146/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

      Defendant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, where a basic patent includes a claim to a product comprising an active ingredient which constitutes the sole subject-matter of the invention, for which the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate, as well as a subsequent claim to a product comprising a combination of that active ingredient and another substance, that provision precludes the holder from obtaining a second supplementary protection certificate for that combination.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-134/06: Action brought on  8 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/12

         Action brought on 8 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-134/06)
   (2006/C 108/20)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court to

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, as regards the profession of veterinary surgeon, that are necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that Directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this case Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive before 1 January 2003 and that they are to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
   The Commission considers that Greece has not yet taken the measures necessary as regards the profession of veterinary surgeon.

      (1)  OJ L 206 of 31/07/2001


title: Case T-160/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/40

         Action brought on 1 April 2015 — LG Developpement v OHIM — Bayerische Motoren Werke (MINICARGO)
   (Case T-160/15)
   (2015/C 198/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Developpement (Baud, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (München, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MINICARGO’ — Application for registration No 11 278 751

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2015 in Case R 596/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 1999 in Case C-383/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nordhorn): Criminal proceedings against Arnoldus van der Laan (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Directive 79/112/EEC - Dutch formed shoulder ham composed of shoulder ham pieces)

text:
C 100/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
                                                                         prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                      (First Chamber)                                    provisions necessary to comply with:
                    of 9 February 1999
                                                                         Ð Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 13 September
in   Case    C-354/97 Commission of the European
                                                                             1993 on feedingstuffs intended for particular
             Communities v. French Republic (1)
                                                                             nutritional purposes,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directives 93/74/EEC, 94/28/EC, 94/39/EC, 95/9/EC and                    Ð Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994
                         95/10/EC)                                           laying down the principles relating to the
                      (1999/C 100/08)                                        zootechnical      and     genealogical      conditions
                                                                             applicable to imports from third countries of
                                                                             animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and
               (Language of the case: French)                                amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred
                                                                             breeding animals of the bovine species,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Ð Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
                                                                             establishing a list of intended uses of animal
                                                                             feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes,
In Case C-354/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) v. French Republic                     Ð Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995
(Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Christina Vasak) Ð                      amending Directive 94/39/EC, and
Application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
force within the periods prescribed the laws, regulations                Ð Commission Directive 95/10/EC of 7 April 1995
and administrative provisions Ð including, where                             fixing the method of calculating the energy value
appropriate, sanctions Ð necessary to comply with:                           of dog and cat food intended for particular
                                                                             nutritional purposes,
Ð Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 3 September 1993 on
    feedingstuffs intended for particular nutritional                    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    purposes (OJ L 237, 22.9.1993, p. 23),                               under Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of
                                                                         Directive 94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC,
                                                                         Article 2 of Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of
Ð Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
                                                                         Directive 95/10/EC;
    down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
    genealogical conditions applicable to imports from
    third countries of animals, their semen, ova and                2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
    embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on
    pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (OJ            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
    L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 66),
Ð Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
    establishing a list of intended uses of animal
    feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes (OJ
    L 207, 10.8.1994, p. 20),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Ð Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995                                              (First Chamber)
    amending Directive 94/39/EC (OJ L 91, 22.4.1995,                                      of 9 February 1999
    p. 35), and
                                                                    in Case C-383/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    the Amtsgericht Nordhorn): Criminal proceedings against
Ð Commission Directive 95/10/EC of 7 April 1995 fixing                                 Arnoldus van der Laan (1)
    the method of calculating the energy value of dog and
    cat food intended for particular nutritional purposes           (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs Ð Article 30 of
    (OJ L 91, 22.4.1995, p. 39),                                    the EC Treaty and Directive 79/112/EEC Ð Dutch
                                                                      formed shoulder ham composed of shoulder ham pieces)
and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the                                    (1999/C 100/09)
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of Directive                         (Language of the case: German)
94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC, Article 2 of
Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of Directive 95/10/EC Ð
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
(President of the Chamber) D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur)
and, L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on               In Case C-383/97: Reference to the Court under
9 February 1999, in which it:                                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Amtsgericht
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/7
Nordhorn (Germany) for a preliminary in the criminal                 Florence (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
proceedings before that court against Arnoldus van der               proceedings pending before that court against Massimo
Laan Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC                 Romanelli, Paolo Romanelli Ð on the interpretation of
Treaty Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann             Article 3 of the Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of
(Rapporteur), (President of the Chamber) D. A. O.                    15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws,
Edward and M. Wathelet, Judges, J. Mischo, Advocate-                 regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 February 1999, in               and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ L 386,
which it has ruled:                                                  30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                     composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of
                                                                     the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and
It is contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for national           R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H.
rules to prohibit, for reasons of consumer protection, the           von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
marketing of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and                    given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it has
marketed in another Member State, where consumers are                ruled:
protected by means of labelling in accordance with the
provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                 The term other repayable funds' in Article 3 of the
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation            Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
and advertising of foodstuffs, in particular those                   1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
concerning the description of products and the list of               administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
ingredients.                                                         pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
                                                                     Directive 77/780/EEC refers not only to financial
                                                                     instruments which possess the intrinsic characteristic of
It is contrary to Articles 2 and 5(1) of Directive 79/112/           repayability, but also to those which, although not
EEC to use a trade description which does not make it                possessing that characteristic, are the subject of a
possible for purchasers in the State where the product is            contractual agreement to repay the funds paid.
sold to ascertain the true nature of the foodstuff.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
Where the quantity of added water represents more than
5 % by weight of the finished product, failure to include
water' in the list of ingredients constitutes infringement of
Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(5)(a), of
Directive 79/112/EEC.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 23 February 1999
                                                                     in Case C-42/97: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Council Decision 96/664/EC Ð Promotion of linguistic
                                                                     diversity of the Community in the information society Ð
                                                                                Legal basis)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (1999/C 100/11)
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 11 February 1999                                            (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-366/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Florence): criminal
proceedings against Massimo Romanelli and Paolo                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          Romanelli (1)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Credit institutions Ð
                       Repayable funds)                              In Case C-42/97: European Parliament (Agents: Johann
                                                                     Schoo and Norbert Lorenz) v. Council of the European
                        (1999/C 100/10)                              Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and FreÂdeÂric Anton)
                                                                     Ð Application for annulment of Council Decision 96/664/
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      EC of 21 November 1996 on the adoption of a
                                                                     multiannual programme to promote linguistic diversity of
                                                                     the Community in the information society (OJ L 306,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       28.11.1996, p. 40) Ð the Court, composed of: P. J. G.
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Kapteyn, President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers,
                                                                     actig as President, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
In Case C-366/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale,                 Wathelet, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;


title: Case C-88/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Béthune, by judgment of that court of 24 March 1998 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against the Direction des Services Fiscaux

text:
C 136/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
7. Can the rule in Sections 24(2) JAG and 14(a) JAO be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
    justified for the purposes of Article 2(4) of Directive            Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 5 March 1999
    76/207/EEC merely on the ground that it counterbalances            in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2. W. G.
    disadvantages not faced by women as they are not subject                Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld
    to a duty of service?
                                                                                (Case C-89/99)
8. Can Article 6 of Directive 76/207/EEC found a right of
    access to training where refusal of access is based on                                     (1999/C 136/22)
    discrimination and there are no other available sanctions
    in the form of rights to compensation?                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                         Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 5 March
                                                                       1999, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of 1. V.O.F. Schieving-Nijstad, 2.
                                                                       W. G. Schieving and 3. H. Nijstad against R. Groeneveld on
                                                                       the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       1. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
Nederlanden by judgment of 26 February 1999 in the case
                                                                           Article 50(6), have direct effect?
of 1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX ’, 2. Langenberg
Participaties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Pro-               2. Is Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement to be interpreted
motions, v 1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image                as meaning that provisional measures, within the meaning
                               B.V.                                        of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of that provision, must
                                                                           automatically lapse by operation of law either in the event
                         (Case C-84/99)                                    that the substantive proceedings are not instituted within
                                                                           the period prescribed for their commencement in the
                        (1999/C 136/20)                                    provisional measure or, in the absence of the determination
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     of such a period, where the substantive proceedings are
European Communities by judgment of 26 February 1999 of                    not commenced within 20 working days or 31 calendar
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                        days (whichever is the longer period); alternatively, in order
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on                  for the provisional measure to lapse, is it (invariably)
9 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      necessary for an appeal to have been lodged by the party
1. Amsterdamsche Football Club ‘AJAX’, 2. Langenberg Partici-              against whom that measure has been ordered?
paties B.V., also trading under the name Fan Promotions, v             3. Where the time-limit within which the substantive pro-
1. S. C. Reule, 2. S. J. Reule, and 3. Fan Image B.V. on the               ceedings must be brought is not prescribed in the pro-
following question: Does Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement              visional measures ordered, does it commence on:
have direct effect?
                                                                           (a) the day after the date on which the court ordered the
                                                                                provisional measure in question; or
                                                                           (b) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
                                                                                the provisional measure was served on the defendant;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                           or
Grande Instance, Béthune, by judgment of that court of
24 March 1998 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against                    (c) the day after the date on which the decision ordering
              the Direction des Services Fiscaux                                the provisional measure became definitive and no
                                                                                longer open to challenge; or
                         (Case C-88/99)
                                                                           (d) at any other point in time?
                        (1999/C 136/21)                                4. Where a court orders a provisional measure, must it of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     own motion fix a time-limit within which substantive
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                        proceedings are to be instituted, or may it fix such a
Grande Instance (High Court), Béthune of 24 March 1998,                    time-limit only if an application is made to that effect?
received at the Court Registry on 15 March 1999, for a                 5. Where a court is called upon in appeal proceedings to
preliminary ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA against               adjudicate on a measure ordered by a lower court in
the Direction des Services Fiscaux (Tax Department). The                   proceedings at first instance, and that appellate court
Tribunal de Grande Instance, Béthune seeks a ruling from the               confirms that measure, is it open to the appellate court to
Court of Justice on the legality of Article 190 of the Livre des           prescribe, either of its own motion or on application by
Procédures Fiscales (Book of Tax Procedures) and, in particular,           one of the parties, a time-limit within the meaning
on the question whether the French Government was entitled,                hereinbefore referred to, if the court seised of the matter at
under Community law, to make a distinction between the date                first instance has not done so?
on which an action became time-barred and the date on which
recovery became time-barred, entailing a difference in the             6. Is Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement applicable where that
treatment of actions under national law and actions com-                   agreement enters into force in the Contracting State
menced on the basis of a judgment of the Court of Justice of               concerned on a date following the closure of the trial
the European Communities in which a provision of national                  procedure at first instance but before the court seised of
law was found to be illegal.                                               the first-instance proceedings has delivered its decision?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 28 March 1995 in Case T-12/94: Frédéric Daffix v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Removal from post - Statement of reasons)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/11
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               declaration that the national proceedings giving rise to the
                                                                       attachment order were unlawful — the Court of First
                        (Third Chamber)
                                                                       Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                      of 28 March 1995                                 President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges;
in Case T-12/94 : Frédéric Daffix v. Commission of the                 B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 March
                   European Communities (*)                            1 995 , in which it:
       (Officiais — Removal from post — Statement of
                               reasons)                                1 , rejects the requests made by the applicant in the
                                                                             documents dated 10 and 20 December 1994;
                           ( 95/C 119/26 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       2 , dismisses the application;
In Case T- 1 2/94: Frédéric Daffix, a former official of the           3 , orders each party to bear its own costs, including those
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                          relating to the application for interim measures.
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in              (M OJ No C 263 , 29 . 9 . 1993 .
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
 Glesener, against Commission of the European
 Communities (Agents: D. Gouloussis and B. Cambier) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 18 March 1993 removing the applicant from his post and,
in so far as is necessary, annulment of the implied decision                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First                                     of 23 February 1995
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
President of the Chamber, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,              in Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on                     GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
28 March 1995 , in which it:                                                               (Declining ofjurisdiction)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/28 )
 1 , annuls the Commission decision of 18 March 1993
      removing the applicant from his post;                                            (Language of the case: German)
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      In Case T-488/93 : Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
                                                                      GmbH, having its registered office in Bremen ( Germany ),
 (M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                      represented by Gerhard Wiedemann and Jan-Peter Hix, of
                                                                      the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8—10, Rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                      against Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
                                                                      B. Smulders and J. Grunwald ) — application for annulment
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993
                                                                      concerning aid awarded by the German Government to
                      of 29 March 1995
                                                                      Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan
in Case T-497/93: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the               AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH
                   European Communites 0 )                            from Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG ( 2 ) — the
(Officials — Deduction from remuneration — Protocol                   Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
on the Privileges and Immunities of the European                      Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                          Communities)                                R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garcίa-Valdecasas and C. W.
                                                                      Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                          ( 95/C 119/27)
                                                                      23 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in
In Case T-497/93 : Anne Hogan, official at the European                     Case T-488/93, (Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                          GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities,
Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrare Bar, with an                       in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux v.                     applications for annulment;
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Maggioni, N. Lierow and P. Ferrari ) — application for
                                                                     2,     the costs are reserved.
the annulment of the decisions of the Court of Justice
concerning a sum deducted from the applicant's
remuneration pursuant to an attachement order, for the                t 1 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
reimbursement of that sum, for compensation in respect of             (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
the material and non-material damage which the applicant
claims to have suffered and, in the alternative, for a


title: Case C-264/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 16(3) — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Measures necessary)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-264/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 16(3) - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Measures necessary)
   (2007/C 96/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Adoption of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


10.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 191/23
(and to organise any necessary strikes to that end). Conse-                     Removal from the register of Case C-178/01 (1)
quently, a possible infringement of a fundamental right (the
freedom to form an association) cannot be examined by the                                       (2002/C 191/38)
Community judicature in precisely those cases where such an
infringement concerns, in a general and abstract manner, all
potential holders of the fundamental right, i.e. where it is             By order of 18 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
based on a legislative provision.                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-178/01: Commission of the European
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Report.                      Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 191/37)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-214/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/39)
By order of 16 April 2002 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Bremen): Fikri            By order of 15 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen.                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-214/01: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 September 1997 in Case C-130/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v. Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, also represented: Ministério Público (VAT - Article 33 of the sixth VAT Directive - Maintenance of stamp duties - Stamp duty on the value of contracts relating to the construction of an oil tanker)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/3
     failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the first             must be construed as not precluding the maintenance of a
     subparagraph of Article 8 (1 ) of Council Directive 83/            national charge having the characteristics of a stamp duty
     189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure                   levied on works contracts and contracts for the supply of
     for the provision of information in the field of                   materials or any kind of consumer article, to the exclusion
     technical standards and regulations, as amended by                 of a large portion of economic transcations in the Member
     Directive 88/182/EEC;                                              State concerned.
                                                                        O OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(') OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 10 July 1997
                           ( First Chamber)                             in Case C-234/94 Waltraud Tomberger v. Gebrüder von
                                                                                der Wettern GmbH (')
                      of 17 September 1997
                                                                                (Correction)
in Case C-130/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fazenda Pública v.                                        ( 97/C 318/05 )
Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, also represented: Ministério
                                Público P )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(VAT — Article 33 of the sixth VAT Directive —
Maintenance of stamp duties — Stamp duty on the value
  of contracts relating to the construction of an oil tanker)           In Case C-234/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a
                             ( 97/C 318/04 )                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between Waltraud Tomberger and Gebriider von der
                                                                        Wettern GmbH on the interpretation of Articles 31 ( 1 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        and 59 of the fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                        25 July 1978 based on Article 54 ( 3 ) (g) of the Treaty on
                                                                        the annual accounts of certain types of companies ( OJ
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 11 ) as amended by the seventh
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Council Directive 83/349/EEC based on Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g)
                                                                        of the Treaty on consolidated accounts ( OJ L 193 , 18 . 7.
                                                                        1983 , p. 1 ), the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case C-130/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (President of the Chamber),
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal Administra                  C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P.
tive ( Supreme Administrative Court) Portugal, for a                    Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               Advocate-General, R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
court between Fazenda Publica and Solisnor-Estaleiros
                                                                        on 10 July 1997 correcting the judgment of 27 June
Navais SA, also represented : Ministerio Publico — on the               1996 (2 ) the operative part of which should read as
interpretation of Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive             follows :
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                      Where
assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) and of
Article 378 of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                    — one company (the parent company) is the sole
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ L 302,                    shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and
15 . 11 . 1985, p. 23 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                      controls it,
composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate              — under national law, the parent company and the
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                         subsidiary form a group,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in
which it has ruled;
                                                                        — the financial years of the two companies coincide,
Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                     — the subsidiary 's general meeting approved the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                           appropriation of certain profits to the parent company
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                      in respect of the financial year concerned,


title: Case C-290/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Patrice D’Oultremont and Others v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) — Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ — Conditions concerning the installation of wind turbines laid down by a regulatory order — Provisions concerning, inter alia, safety, inspection, site restoration and financial collateral and permitted noise levels set having regard to area use)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Patrice D’Oultremont and Others v Région wallonne
   (Case C-290/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) - Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ - Conditions concerning the installation of wind turbines laid down by a regulatory order - Provisions concerning, inter alia, safety, inspection, site restoration and financial collateral and permitted noise levels set having regard to area use))
   (2017/C 006/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Patrice D'Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Intervening parties: Fédération de l’Énergie d’origine renouvelable et alternative ASBL (EDORA)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that a regulatory order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, containing various provisions on the installation of wind turbines which must be complied with when administrative consent is granted for the installation and operation of such installations comes within the notion of ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-399/17: Action brought on 28 June 2017 — Dalli v Commission

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/49

         Action brought on 28 June 2017 — Dalli v Commission
   (Case T-399/17)
   (2017/C 277/71)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the compensation of the prejudice, notably the moral prejudice, estimated on a provisional basis at 1 000 000 euros;

               —

               order to the defendant to bear the entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action for indemnification, the applicant relies on two pleas in law with regard to the claimed illegality.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the OLAF’s conduct was unlawful

                           —

                           The OLAF’s unlawful conducts are, notably, the following ones: illegality of the decision to open the investigation; flaws in the characterization of the investigations and illegality of the extension of the scope of the investigation; violation of the principles for gathering evidence (including distortion and falsification of evidence), of the rights of defence and of various EU provisions (as Articles 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 4, 8 and 11(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999, Article 4 of Commission Decision No 1999/396, Article 18 of the OLAF instructions, and Article 13(5) of the Supervisory Committee’s Rules) as well as of the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and of the right to the protection of personal data.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the Commission’s conduct was unlawful

                           —

                           The Commission’s unlawful conducts are the following ones: violation of the principle of sound and good administration and of the duty to behave in an objective, impartial and loyal manner and in the respect of the principle of independence, as well as the violation of the OLAF independence.


title: Case C-536/14: Order of the President of the Court of 14 April 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 April 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-536/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-285/15: Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Free movement of goods — Directive 89/106/EEC — Construction products — Chimney linings — National legislation requiring chimneys to be made exclusively with non-combustible materials)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/6

         Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Beca Engineering Srl v Ministero dell’Interno
   (Case C-285/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Free movement of goods - Directive 89/106/EEC - Construction products - Chimney linings - National legislation requiring chimneys to be made exclusively with non-combustible materials))
   (2016/C 279/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beca Engineering Srl

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The compatibility with EU law of national legislation requiring chimneys in civil heating systems to be constructed using incombustible materials, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be assessed in the light of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003.

               2.

               On a proper construction of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and rules concerning services of the information society, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, such national legislation must be treated as a technical rule within the meaning of Article 1(3) and (11) of that directive, and for want of notification to the European Commission by the Member State concerned, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, as amended, that national legislation is inapplicable, which individuals may rely upon before the national courts.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-148/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/10

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-148/12)
   2012/C 138/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing fully to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2008/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Directive 2004/49/EC on safety on the Community’s railways, (1) or fully to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2008/110/EC at the daily rate of EUR 148 094,1, payable to the European Union’s own resources account;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 24 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 345, p. 62.


title: Case T-566/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Hostel Tourist World v OHIM — WRI Nominees (Hostel Tourist World.com)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/11

         Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Hostel Tourist World v OHIM — WRI Nominees (Hostel Tourist World.com)
   (Case T-566/13)
   2014/C 31/19
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hostel Tourist World, SL (Seville, Spain) (represented by: J.M. Bartrina Díaz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WRI Nominees Ltd (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul OHIM’s decision in so far as it upholds the appeal lodged by WRI Nominees Ltd, concerning the cancellation or invalidity of Community trade mark No 7 241 862 HOSTELTOURISTWORLD for Classes 39 and 43 in the International Classification;

               —

               pursuant to Article 65(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, dismiss the appeal lodged by WRI Nominees Ltd in relation to the invalidity of Community trade mark No 7 241 862‘HOSTELTOURISTWORLD.COM’ for Classes 35, 39 and 43 in the International Classification, or, in the alternative, order OHIM to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court delivered in accordance with the terms indicated in the application; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned, in respect of which an application for a declaration of invalidity was made: Figurative mark ‘HostelTouristWorld.com’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43 — Registered Community trade mark No 7 241 862

      Proprietor of the mark: The applicant

      Applicant for a declaration of invalidity: WRI Nominees Ltd

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) thereof, and of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 53(1)(c) thereof

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal of WRI Nominees Ltd upheld in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 63 and 64 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) thereof.


title: Case T-423/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Redaelli Tecna v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Reasonable time)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Redaelli Tecna v Commission
   (Case T-423/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Reasonable time))
   (2015/C 302/49)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Redaelli Tecna SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Zaccà, M. Todino, E. Cruellas Sada and S. Patuzzo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Gencarelli, L. Prete and V. Bottka, and subsequently by V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Redaelli Tecna SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-229/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 9 May 2007 — Diana Mayeur v Ministre de la santé et des solidarités

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) lodged on 9 May 2007 — Diana Mayeur v Ministre de la santé et des solidarités
   (Case C-229/07)
   (2007/C 155/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal administratif de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Diana Mayeur

      Defendant: Ministre de la santé et des solidarités
   Question referred
   Do the provisions of Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) entitle a national of a non-Member State, who is married to a Community national, to rely on the Community rules relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas and to the freedom of establishment, and do they require the competent authorities of the Member State, from which authorisation to practise a regulated profession is sought, to take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, even if they were obtained outside the European Union but if, at least, they have been recognised in another Member State, and the relevant experience of the person concerned, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34).


title: Removal from the register of C-217/96

text:
C 295/26                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
removal from the register of Case C-58/96 : Kingdom of                           Removal from the register of C-330/96 (')
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,                                                  ( 97/C 295/50 )
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
                                                                        By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
(') OJ C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-330/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
         Removal from the register of C-2 17/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/47)
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of                            Removal from the register of C-331/96 (')
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-2 17/96 : Kingdom of                                            ( 97/C 295/51 )
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities ,
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                                    By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
H OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                             removal from the register of Case C-331/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-3 96/95 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/48 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-281/94 ( 1 )
By order of 19 June 1997 the President of the Court of                                               ( 97/C 295/52 )
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-396/95 : Federal
Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European                       By order of 26 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Communities, supported by French Republic and United                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                         removal from the register of Case C-281/94: Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
 w OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                         H OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
          Removal from the register of C-l 84/95 (')
                             ( 97/C 295/49 )                                       Removal from the register of C-97/97 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/53 )
 By order of 24 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 removal from the register of Case C-l 84/95 ( reference for             By order of 1 July 1997 the President of the Court of
 a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado do lo Social No 2,               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 Santiago do Compostela ): Mercedes Lores Guillfn v. Insti              removal from the register of Case C-97/97 ( reference for a
 tute Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la                    preliminary ruling from the Retten i Arhus ): Elly Bach v.
 Seguridad Social .                                                      Arhus Amtskommune.
 (') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                            (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.


title: Action brought on 1 April 1998 by Aruba against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-54/98)

text:
30.5.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 166/19
infringement of Article 133(1) of the Treaty, infringement         essential procedural requirements and infringement of the
of Article 132(1) of the Treaty in conjunction with                Treaty or of rules for the implementation thereof and/or
Article 102 of the OCT decision, infringement of                   breach of general principles of Community law, in
Article XIII of GATT 1994 and of the WTO Agreement                 particular: illegality of Article 101(1) of the OCT decision,
on import licensing procedures, infringement of                    illegality of the origin rules contained in Title I of Annex II
Article 228(7) of the Treaty and breach of the principle of        to the OCT decision, illegality of the amending decision
proportionality.                                                   on which the sugar implementation regulation is based,
                                                                   the fact that the sugar implementation regulation is ultra
                                                                   vires, infringement of Article 234 of the OCT decision,
                                                                   infringement of Article 133(1) of the Treaty, infringement
                                                                   of Article 132(1) of the Treaty in conjunction with
                                                                   Article 102 of the OCT decision, infringement of
                                                                   Article XIII of GATT 1994 and of the WTO Agreement
Action brought on 1 April 1998 by Aruba against the                on import licensing procedures, infringement of
         Commission of the European Communities                    Article 228(7) of the Treaty and breach of the principle of
                       (Case T-54/98)                              proportionality.
                        (98/C 166/46)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                   Action brought on 3 April 1998 by VTech Electronics
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        (UK) plc against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1998                                         Communities
by Aruba, represented by P. Bos and M. Slotboom, of the
                                                                                (Case T-56/98)
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                                (98/C 166/47)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                   An action against the Commission of the European
     17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,          Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1998
     1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT                       by VTech Electronics (UK) plc, represented by David
     originating products (OJ L 349 of 19.12.1997, p. 26);         Milne and Rupert Baldry, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Wilson Associates, 9, Avenue
                                                                   Guillaume.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant seeks annulment of the sugar                         Ð declare void the Commission decision of 26Ð27
implementation regulation, which lays down the detailed                 January 1998 to issue a regulation which purports to
implementing rules for imports of sugar qualifying under                reclassify for customs duty purposes a product
the rules relating to ACP/OCT cumulation of origin in                   imported by VTech from China known as the Smart
accordance with Article 108b of the OCT decision.                       Start Premier' and/or to declare void the ensuing
                                                                        regulation;
The sugar implementation regulation is intended to secure
the limitation by the Community of imports of sugar                Ð take such further action as the Court may deem
originating, in particular, in Aruba. The Commission has                appropriate; and
restricted trade between Aruba and the Community,
contrary to Community law. Those restrictions must be              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
lifted for the remaining duration of the OCT decision. The
application also includes a claim that the legal
infringements complained of should not be repeated in the          Pleas in law and main arguments:
future. Lastly, the contested regulation imposes serious
restrictions on, and thus severely affects, an important
infant industry' in Aruba, namely the sugar refining              The applicant is a company incorporated in the United
sector.                                                            Kingdom and belongs to the worldwide VTech Group of
                                                                   Companies. VTech's principal activity is the sale of
                                                                   electronic products, in particular learning pads, electronic
The pleas in law advanced in opposition to the contested           keyboard units programmed with a number of activities
regulation allege lack of competence, infringement of              for children. The object of its application is a Commission


title: Case T-570/14: Action brought on 30 July 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/13

         Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)
   (Case T-570/14)
   2014/C 361/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 124/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO MIT PFLANZENFLUID AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  581

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations


title: Case T-150/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/43

         Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
   (Case T-150/10)
   2010/C 148/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loopia AB (Västeras, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2010 in case R 1812/2008-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “LOOPIA”, for services in class 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 an 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 ad 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOPY”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, rejected the opposition and allowed the application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-266/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission (Public service contracts — Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2016 — Argus Security Projects v Commission
   (Case T-266/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 314/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Union Assistance Mission (EUBAM Libya) not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant for the award, by means of a competitive negotiated procedure, of the contract relating to security services in the context of the EUBAM Libya for an integrated management of the borders in Libya (EUBAM-13-020 contract) and to award the contract to Garda World Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-22/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(m) — Supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education — Exemption for the hiring out of berths and sites for the storage of boats to the members of water sports associations in the context of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education — Exemption limited to the members of water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services — Excluded — Point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-22/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(m) - Supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education - Exemption for the hiring out of berths and sites for the storage of boats to the members of water sports associations in the context of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education - Exemption limited to the members of water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services - Excluded - Point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 133))
   (2016/C 145/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by exempting from value added tax, in the context of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education, the hiring out of berths and sites for the storage of boats to the members of water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services, and

                           —

                           by limiting, in cases where the berths and sites for the storage of boats are hired out to persons taking part in sport and that hiring-out is closely linked to and essential for the practice of that sport, the exemption for hiring-out to water sports associations which have no employees for delivery of their services,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.