title: Case C-275/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent, by order of that court of 28 June 2000 in the case of the European Community, acting through the European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and (2) Franex N.V.

text:
9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespa-                   Must the second paragraph of Article 288 EC (formerly the
tentgericht, by order of that court of 14 April 2000 in the             second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty) be interpret-
    appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann                     ed as meaning that, where an application is made for an order
                                                                        requiring the Commission of the European Communities to
                         (Case C-273/00)                                participate in an expert assessment which has already been
                                                                        ordered as against the Belgian State, on the basis that the
                         (2000/C 259/15)                                assessment procedure and the expert’s final report are to be
                                                                        declared common to the parties and binding on the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities; and the expert’s tasks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in that connection include inter alia an examination of the
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                responses and behaviour of the Commission of the European
(Federal Patents Court) of 14 April 2000, received at the Court         Communities, its bodies and employees from the time it
Registry on 10 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the               became aware of the dioxin contamination, and of the
appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann on the                  appropriateness of the measures taken by it and the impact
following questions:                                                    thereof on the adverse effects and damage sustained by the
                                                                        respondents; and the application in question is made with a
1.   Is Article 2 of the First Council Directive of 21 December         view to the subsequent institution of substantive proceedings
     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                  regarding the respective liability of the Belgian State and the
     relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) (1) to be interpreted         European Community in respect of the dioxin crisis, that
     as meaning that the expression ‘signs capable of being             application constitutes a non-contractual liability claim over
     represented graphically’ covers only those sings which             which the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
     can be reproduced directly in their visible form or is it          alternatively the Court of First Instance of the European
     also to be construed as meaning signs — such as odours             Communities, has exclusive jurisdiction?
     or sounds — which cannot be perceived visually per se
     but can be reproduced indirectly using certain aids?
2.   If the first question is answered in terms of a broad
     interpretation, are the requirements of graphic representa-
     bility set out in Article 2 satisfied where an odour is
     reproduced
     (a)    By a chemical formula;
     (b) By a description (to be published);
     (c)    By means of a deposit, or                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
                                                                        Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
     (d) By a combination of the abovementioned surrogate               2000 in the case of Turbon International GmbH against
            reproductions?                                              Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuer-
                                                                                abteilung
(1) OJ L of 11 February 1989, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-276/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/17)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent, by order of that court of 28 June 2000                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in the case of the European Community, acting through                   European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
the European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and                     richt of 21 February 2000, received at the Court Registry on
                          (2) Franex N.V.                               12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling the case of Turbon
                                                                        International GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll
                                                                        und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung on the following question:
                         (Case C-275/00)
                         (2000/C 259/16)
                                                                        Is a compatible ink-jet cartridge, consisting of an ink cartridge
                                                                        (plastic casing, cellular material, metal screen, seals, tape seal,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  labels), ink and packing materials, where both the ink cartridge
European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te                  and the ink can be used solely in an Epson Stylos Color printer,
Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent) of 28 June 2000, received at
the Court Registry on 12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the European Community, acting through the               —     to be classified under code number 3215 90 80 as a
European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and (2) Franex                    disposable, ink-filled cartridge (without integrated print
N.V. on the following question:                                               head) for ink-jet printers


title: Case C-477/12: Order of the President of the Court of 17 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience K.K.

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience K.K.
   (Case C-477/12) (1)

   2014/C 112/32
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-212/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Mons (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 24 May 2000, in the case of Salvatore Stallone against Office National de l'Emploi

text:
22.7.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 211/13
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
The pleas in law and main arguments                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the third paragraph Article 249 of the EC Treaty, a                In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 is binding in its
each Member State to which it is addressed. Under Article 10(1)          entirety on the Federal Republic of Germany as its addressee,
of the Treaty, Member States are to take appropriate measures,           and it is to be implemented immediately. Since 4 August 1989
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the               the Federal Republic of Germany has been obliged under
obligations arising out of that Treaty or resulting from action          Article 2 of the decision to adopt all necessary measures to
taken by the institutions of the Community.                              withdraw the aid, which was made available unlawfully, and
                                                                         to recover it from the recipient. Under Article 3, Germany
The Commission finds that, to date, despite the fact that the            must communicate to the Commission within two months
prescribed time-limit has expired, the Italian Republic has not          following notification of the decision the measures adopted to
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to comply           comply with it. In accordance with Article 242 EC, the actions
with Directive 97/36/EC and must therefore declare that the              brought against the decision (1) do not have suspensory effect;
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              an application for suspension of operation of the decision is
Article 2 of the directive.                                              possible under that provision but none has been made.
                                                                         Proposals made hitherto by the Federal Government for
                                                                         implementing the decision have been unacceptable for the
(1) OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
                                                                         Commission. Nor was repayment made before a final deadline
(2) OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.                                                expired.
                                                                         (1) By the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-376/99), Westdeut-
                                                                             sche Landesbank Girozentrale (T-228/99) and the Land of
                                                                             Nordrhein-Westfalen (T-233/99).
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany
                          (Case C-209/00)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
                                                                         Travail de Mons (Second Chamber) by judgment of that
                          (2000/C 211/22)                                court of 24 May 2000, in the case of Salvatore Stallone
                                                                                against Office National de l’Emploi
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                                     (Case C-212/00)
ties on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco Santaolalla, Principal
                                                                                (2000/C 211/23)
Legal Adviser, and Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                                 European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
                                                                         de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) (Second Chamber) of 24 May
                                                                         2000, received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2000, for a
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Salvatore Stallone against
                                                                         Office National de l’Emploi on the following question:
1. declare that, by not adopting within the period laid down
     all necessary measures to withdraw aid and reclaim
     from Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale aid already               Do the EC treaties, the EC rules, and in particular Articles 1(f)
     granted, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to              and 68(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 Decem-
     fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and Article 3 of        ber 1996 (1), in their current versions or in their version
     Commission Decision K (1999) 2265 final of 8 July 1999              between 1 December 1990 and the date hereof, preclude
     by which the State aid granted by Germany in favour of              Article 110(1), first and second subparagraphs, of the Royal
     Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in the years 1992              Decree of 25 November 1991 concerning rules on unemploy-
     to 1998 was declared incompatible with the common                   ment in that this national provision makes the award of a
     market;                                                             better rate of unemployment benefit subject to a condition
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/14                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.7.2000
that the unemployed person lives with certain members of the                      whose administrative, management or supervisory
family, and not solely to the condition that they are actually or                 body is made up of members of whom more than one-
mainly dependant on the unemployed person?                                        half are appointed by the State, or territorial bodies or
                                                                                other bodies governed by public law;
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996
                                                                              — allow review to be sought of all decisions adopted by
    amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the                      the contracting authorities, including all procedural
    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                measures, during the procedure for the award of public
    self-employed persons and to members of their families moving                 contracts;
    within the Community, and of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72
    laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC)
    No 1408/71 (OJ L 28 of 30 January 1997, p. 1).                            — provide for the possibility of appropriate interim
                                                                                measures being granted in relation to decisions adopted
                                                                                by the contracting authorities, including measures
                                                                                suspending administrative decisions, removing for that
                                                                                purpose all difficulties and obstacles and in particular
                                                                                the need first to bring an action against the decision of
                                                                                the contracting authority,
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Community law;
Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                    2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                          (Case C-214/00)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 211/24)
                                                                         The national measures which transpose into Spanish law
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Directive 89/665/EEC and which, as such, have been notified
Court of Justice on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of                     to the Commission from time to time, namely Law 29/1998
the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero                 of 23 July 1998 governing contentious-administrative jurisdic-
Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address          tion, Law 30/1992 of 26 November 1992 on the legal
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la           provisions governing public administrations and ordinary
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          administrative procedure, as amended by Law 4/1999 of
                                                                         13 January 1999, Law 13/1995 of 18 May 1995 governing
                                                                         contracts of public administrations, and the Spanish Consti-
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   tution, are of more limited scope than Directive 89/665/EEC.
                                                                         The measures which are subject to appeal under the said
                                                                         legislation do not include all procedural measures. And in
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures needed to              most cases Spanish law requires an action to be commenced
     give full effect to Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive           before any application for interim measures can be made.
     89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination
     of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     relating to the application of review procedures to the
     award of public supply and public works contracts, and in
     particular by failing to:
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     — extend the system of review procedures provided for                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
          by that directive to decisions adopted by all contracting          contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
          authorities, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of             (3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
          Directives 92/50/EEC (2), 93/36/EC (3) and 93/37/EC (4),           procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199 of
          including companies governed by private law set up                 9.8.1993, p. 1).
          specifically to meet needs in the general interest which       (4) Council Directive 93/3/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
          are not of an industrial or commercial character, have             coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                             contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
          legal personality, and whose business is for the most
          part financed by the State, territorial bodies and
          other bodies governed by public law, or those whose
          operations are subject to supervision by the latter, or


title: Case C-202/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch — Cross-border employment contract — Restriction — Disproportionate)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV
   (Case C-202/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Obligation to draft employment contracts in Dutch - Cross-border employment contract - Restriction - Disproportionate)
   2013/C 164/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anton Las

      Defendant: PSA Antwerp NV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidsrechtbank te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Art. 39 EC (now Art. 45 TFEU) — Belgian regional legislation imposing an obligation on an undertaking established in the Dutch language region to draft, on pain of nullity, all documents relating to an employment relationship with an international character in Dutch

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which requires all employers whose established place of business is located in that entity’s territory to draft cross-border employment contracts exclusively in the official language of that federated entity, failing which the contracts are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/45

         Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
   (Case T-30/04)
   (2004/C 94/128)
   Language of the Case: French
   An action against the European Air Safety Agency was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena, residing at Rhode St Genèse (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the European Air Safety Agency's (EASA) decisions of 11 July 2003 to appoint another person to the post of executive director and to reject the applicant's candidature for that post;

               —

               Order the payment of damages as compensation for the applicant's loss in the sum of EUR 2, the amount fixed on an equitable basis;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the European Air Safety Agency's (EASA) decision to reject his candidature for the post of Executive Director and to appoint another person to that post.
   He points out the fact that the information which he and his lawyers have obtained following their request is fragmentary and has not allowed the applicant a clear and transparent view of the procedure followed.
   In support of his claims, he asserts;

               —

               Breach of the duty to state reasons and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials and of the principle of sound administration;

               —

               Lack of information, from which it can be objectively and legitimately assumed that the principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-discrimination have not been observed, and breach of the procedural rules and the vacancy notice;

               —

               Disregard of the interests of the service and breach of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, in so far as it is clear from a comparison of the merits of the person appointed, based on the brief biography transmitted by the Commission, and of those of the applicant, that the applicant's merits are manifestly superior.


title: Case C-72/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Gemeinde Altrip, Gebrüder Hört GbR and Willi Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Request for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Environmental impact assessment — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/35/EC — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Temporal application — Development consent procedure initiated before the period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/35/EC expired — Decision taken after that date — Conditions of admissibility of the action — Impairment of a right — Nature of the procedural defect that may be invoked — Scope of the review)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Gemeinde Altrip, Gebrüder Hört GbR and Willi Schneider v Land Rheinland-Pfalz
   (Case C-72/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Environmental impact assessment - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/35/EC - Right to challenge a development consent decision - Temporal application - Development consent procedure initiated before the period prescribed for transposing Directive 2003/35/EC expired - Decision taken after that date - Conditions of admissibility of the action - Impairment of a right - Nature of the procedural defect that may be invoked - Scope of the review)
   2014/C 9/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gemeinde Altrip, Gebrüder Hört GbR, Willi Schneider

      Defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz

      Intervening party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht Leipzig — Interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) and of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC — Construction of a flood retention scheme — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Temporal application — Situation in which the development consent procedure was initiated before the date on which the period for transposition of Directive 2003/35/EC expired and the decision was adopted after that date

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By providing that it was to be transposed into national law by 25 June 2005 at the latest, Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, which inserted Article 10a into Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that the rules of national law adopted for the purposes of transposing that article into national law were intended also to apply to administrative development consent procedures initiated before 25 June 2005 when the latter resulted in the granting of consent after that date.

               2.

               Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as precluding the Member States from limiting the applicability of the provisions transposing that article to cases in which the legality of a decision is challenged on the ground that no environmental impact assessment was carried out, while not extending that applicability to cases in which such an assessment was carried out but was irregular.

               3.

               Subparagraph (b) of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as not precluding national courts from refusing to recognise impairment of a right within the meaning of that article if it is established that it is conceivable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the contested decision would not have been different without the procedural defect invoked by the applicant. None the less, that will be the case only if the court of law or body hearing the action does not in any way make the burden of proof fall on the applicant and makes its ruling, where appropriate, on the basis of the evidence provided by the developer or the competent authorities and, more generally, on the basis of all the documents submitted to it, taking into account, inter alia, the seriousness of the defect invoked and ascertaining, in particular, whether that defect has deprived the public concerned of one of the guarantees introduced with a view to allowing that public to have access to information and to be empowered to participate in decision-making, in accordance with the objectives of Directive 85/337.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case T-276/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — El Coto De Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/45

         Action brought on 22 June 2010 — El Coto De Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)
   (Case T-276/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/80
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Coto De Rioja, S.A. (Oyón, Alava) (Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Orense) (Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 April 2010 in Case R 1020/2008-4 and, consequently, declare invalid Community trade mark No 2 631 828, in Class 33, which contains the verbal element ‘COTO DE GOMARIZ’, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘COTO DE GOMARIZ’ (Application No 2 631 828) for goods in Class 33 ‘wines’.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: María Álvarez Serrano

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: EL COTO DE RIOJA S.A.

      Trade mark right or sign of the applicant for the declaration: Community word mark ‘COTO DE IMAZ’ (No 339 333) for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33; Community word mark ‘EL COTO’ (No 339 408) for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33; and the well-known Spanish marks ‘EL COTO’ and ‘COTO DE IMAZ’ for ‘wines’.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment of the contested Community trade mark.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of that regulation.


title: Case C-199/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code — Article 6(2) — Application for binding tariff information — Meaning of one type of goods )

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-199/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Provisions for the implementation of the Community Customs Code - Article 6(2) - Application for binding tariff information - Meaning of ‘one type of goods’)
   2011/C 30/06
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘one type of goods’ — Goods differing as to quality or characteristics but capable of being classified under the same Combined Nomenclature code — Issue of a single set of binding tariff information for all those goods or specific tariff information for each one

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that an application for binding tariff information may relate to different goods provided that these all belong to one and the same type of goods. Only goods which have similar characteristics and whose distinguishing features are completely irrelevant for the purposes of their tariff classification may be regarded as belonging to one type of goods for the purposes of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-136/03: Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert against the Council of the European Union

text:
21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of her action, the applicant pleads failure to state
reasons, breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                                          (Case T-139/03)
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, manifest
errors of assessment, breach of the duty of care and infringe-
ment of the principle of sound administration, infringement                                         (2003/C 146/78)
of the principle of equality of opportunity and, finally, misuse
of powers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles                         European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast
  Schochaert against the Council of the European Union                    S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
                         (Case T-136/03)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 146/77)
                                                                          —      Annul the contested measures;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert,                Pleas in law and main arguments
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, avocat.
                                                                          By its action, the applicant company is challenging:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 225 702,94           1.     the Commission’s letter *D/50721, COMP/G1 D(03)142/
       by way of compensation, and order it to pay the costs.                    PI/cpb dated 3 February 2003 (concerning consultations
                                                                                with the authorities of the Member State which had
                                                                                drawn up the documents);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           2.     Commission document SG.B.2/MM D(2003) sent by fax
                                                                                on 14 March 2003;
The applicant, a former Council official, seeks by way of the
present action to recover compensation in respect of the                  3.     the Commission’s letter *D/51652, COMP/G1/PI/
damage which he claims to have suffered through the defend-                      cpb D(03) dated 12 March 2003.
ant’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 1 during the course of
promotions from 1978 to 2000.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:
The applicant contends that the defendant has refused, since
1978, to promote him on the ground that his duties did not                —      by consulting the authorities of the Member State which
involve the exercise of responsibilities justifying promotion                    had drawn up the documents requested, and in so doing
vis-à-vis other candidates for such promotion, this being a                      even though it was already clear to it that the documents
ground which, in the applicant’s view, is unlawful and amounts                   in issue were excluded from the right of access as being
to a misuse of power for which the Council must incur                            ‘covered’ by the exception ‘inspections and investigations’,
liability.                                                                       the Commission breached the procedural guarantees
                                                                                conferred on individuals by Article 4(4) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
The applicant further alleges that he has been the victim of                     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
exclusion and non-physical harassment by a number of his                         European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
hierarchical superiors.                                                          ments (OJ 2001 L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 43) and the
                                                                                similarly-worded Article 5(2) of the relevant updating
                                                                                provisions. The Commission thus infringed its own


title: Case T-52/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Nycomed Danmark v EMEA

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/33

         Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Nycomed Danmark v EMEA
   (Case T-52/09)
   (2009/C 82/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Nycomed Danmark ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the EMEA to pay its own costs and those of Nycomed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC and to Article 73a of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, of the decision ‘EMEA-000194-IPI01-07’ of 28 November 2008 of the European Medicines Agency (‘EMEA’) rejecting its application for a product specific waiver provided for in Article 11(1)(b) of the aforementioned regulation.
   The applicant applied for such a waiver in respect of an ultrasound echocardiographic imaging agent to be marketed under the brand name Imagify, intended to diagnose coronary artery disease (‘CAD’) in adults. Through its contested decision, the EMEA denied that waiver to the applicants on the grounds that the disease or condition for which the medicinal product is intended is not CAD but myocardial perfusion defects, which also occur in children.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision is unlawful in that it is based on an interpretation and application of the concept of ‘disease or condition for which the medicinal product is intended’ within the meaning of Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 which according to the applicant is incorrect in that it does not take into account the therapeutic indication applied for in the concomitant Community market authorisation application and that myocardial perfusion defects are not a disease or condition, but a sign of various diseases.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision is unlawful in that it is an attempt by the EMEA to misuse its powers pursuant to Articles 11(1)(b) and 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 in order to attain the aim which is not contemplated by those provisions, namely, the obligation to propose a paediatric investigation plan for indications which are not covered by the concomitant Community market authorisation application.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2006 L 378, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 September 2004 in Case C-396/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam): DFDS BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Subheading 8704 10 — ‘Minitrac’ for the transport and dumping of sand, earth and stones with a sophisticated tipping system)

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case C-396/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam): DFDS BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading 8704 10 - ‘Minitrac’ for the transport and dumping of sand, earth and stones with a sophisticated tipping system)
   (2004/C 273/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-396/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received on 11 November 2002, in the proceedings: DFDS BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The fact that a flatbed vehicle is equipped with an intricate, versatile and precise tipping function does not exclude its classification as a dumper within the meaning of subheading 8704 10 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 3115/94 of 20 December 1994 and 3009/95 of 22 December 1995.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case C-333/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session, Scotland (United Kingdom) made on 8 July 2014 — The Scotch Whisky Association and others against The Lord Advocate, The Advocate General for Scotland

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Session, Scotland (United Kingdom) made on 8 July 2014 — The Scotch Whisky Association and others against The Lord Advocate, The Advocate General for Scotland
   (Case C-333/14)
   2014/C 339/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Session, Scotland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Scotch Whisky Association and others

      Defendants: The Lord Advocate, The Advocate General for Scotland

      Questions referred

               1)

               ‘On a proper interpretation of EU law respecting the common organisation of the market in wine, in particular Regulation EU No 1308/2013 (1), is it lawful for a member state to promulgate a national measure which prescribes a minimum retail selling price for wine related to the quantity of alcohol in the sale product and which thus departs from the basis of free formation of price by market forces which otherwise underlies the market in wine?’

               2)

               ‘In the context of a justification sought under article 36 TFEU, where -

                           a member state has concluded that it is expedient in the interest of the protection of human health to increase the cost of consumption of a commodity — in casu alcoholic drinks — to consumers, or a section of those consumers; and

                           that commodity is one in respect of which the member state is free to levy excise duties or other taxes (including taxes or duties based upon alcoholic content or volume or value or a mixture of such fiscal measures),

                     is it permissible under EU law, and if so under what conditions, for a member state to reject such fiscal methods of increasing the price to the consumer in favour of legislative measures fixing minimum retail prices which distort intra EU trade and competition?’

               3)

               ‘Where a court in a member state is called upon to decide whether a legislative measure which constitutes a quantitative restriction on trade incompatible with article 34 TFEU may yet be justified under article 36 TFEU, on the grounds of the protection of human health, is that national court confined to examining only the information, evidence or other materials available to and considered by the legislator at the time at which the legislation was promulgated? And if not, what other restrictions might apply to the national court’s ability to consider all materials or evidence available and offered by the parties at the time of the decision of the national court?’

               4)

               ‘Where a court in a member state is required, in its interpretation and application of EU law, to examine a contention by the national authorities that a measure otherwise constituting a quantitative restriction within the scope of article 34 TFEU is justified as a derogation, in the interests of the protection of human health, under article 36 TFEU, to what extent is the national court required, or entitled, to form — on the basis of the materials before it — an objective view of the effectiveness of the measure in achieving the aim which is claimed; the availability of at least equivalent alternative measures less disruptive of intra EU competition; and the general proportionality of the measure?’

               5)

               ‘In considering (in the context of a dispute as to whether a measure is justified on grounds of the protection of human health under article 36 TFEU) the existence of an alternative measure, not disruptive, or at least less disruptive, of intra EU trade and competition, is it a legitimate ground for discarding that alternative measure that the effects of that alternative measure may not be precisely equivalent to the measure impugned under article 34 TFEU but may bring further, additional benefits and respond to a wider, general aim?’

               6)

               ‘In assessing whether a national measure conceded, or found, to be a quantitative restriction in the sense of article 34 TFEU for which justification is sought under article 36 TFEU and in particular in assessing the proportionality of the measure, to what extent may a court charged with that function take into account its assessment of the nature and extent to which the measure offends as a quantitative restriction offensive to article 34?’

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007,

      OJ L 347, p. 671


title: Action brought on 2 January 1998 by Fabris Carlo & C. SNC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-1/98)

text:
C 72/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 30 December 1997 by Union FrancËaise              costs and certain ancillary costs), the expense of which is
de l'Express (UFEX) and Others against the Commission               borne by the taxpayer for the sole purpose of conferring
               of the European Communities                          on the public undertaking the resources necessary to
                       (Case T-613/97)                              perform its function of public postal service under a legal
                                                                    monopoly, a function in no way performed by its private-
                         (98/C 72/49)                               law subsidiary operating on the express delivery market.
               (Language of the case: French)                       In addition, the applicant companies maintain that the
                                                                    Commission:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Ð has breached certain fundamental principles of
Instance of the European Communities on 30 December                     Community law related to the right to access to
1997 by Union FrancËaise de l'Express (UFEX), whose                     information, the principle audi alteram partem and the
registered office is at Roissy (France), DHL International,             right to be heard in the context of Article 93(2) of the
whose registered office is at Roissy, Federal Express                   Treaty,
International (France), whose registered office is at
Gennevilliers (France) and CRIE, whose registered office is
at AsnieÁres (France), represented by Eric Morgan de                Ð failed to comply with the obligation to give reasons
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the                   laid down in Article 190 of the EC Treaty, and
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue
Guillaume.                                                          Ð based the contested decision on several material
                                                                        inaccuracies and obvious errors assessing the facts.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision of 1 October 1997
     concerning the aid granted by France to SFMI-
     Chronopost.
                                                                    Action brought on 2 January 1998 by Fabris Carlo & C.
                                                                           SNC against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-1/98)
UFEX and three companies active in the express delivery                                     (98/C 72/50)
field challenge the Commission's rejection of their
complaint criticising the conditions for the logistical and
commercial assistance afforded by La Poste (the French                             (Language of the case: Italian)
Post Office) to its subsidiary, SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de
Messagerie Internationale (SFMI), concerning in particular
the fact that all post offices and staff and equipment are          An action against the Commission of the European
made available to SFMI, which also enjoys preferential              Communities was brought before the Court of First
customs clearance procedures, preferential financial                Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1998
conditions and promotional and advertising operations. In           by Fabris Carlo & C. SNC, represented by Claudio
their observations in connection with the procedure under           Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at
Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty the applicants had in                his Chambers at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
addition objected to the use of La Poste's brand image,
access to Radio France's air waves when every other
undertaking is excluded, exemption from stamp duty and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the transfer to SFMI of the advantages arising from La
Poste's part exemption from the special pay-roll tax, as
well as the benefit of the customs privileges enjoyed by la         Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
Poste.                                                                  30 July 1997,
In this application it is claimed that the Commission may           Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
not exclude measures adopted by a public undertaking                    inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
with a legal monopoly of the ordinary postal service in                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
favour of its private-law subsidiary, operating on the                  the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
international express delivery market, which is open to                 was paid,
competition, from the scope of Article 92 of the EC
Treaty. Those measures, it is maintained, constitute aid,
inasmuch as they allow the subsidiary to reap the                   Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
advantage of savings on costs (particularly development                 Communities to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 72/23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Birri Fiorindo
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-4/98)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                                           (98/C 72/52)
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
                                                                    by Birri Fiorindo, represented by Claudio Mussato, of the
                                                                    Udine Bar, with an address for service at his Chambers at
                                                                    4 Via Dante, Udine.
Action brought on 5 January 1998 by D'Odorico Franco
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-3/98)
                          (98/C 72/51)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                                                                         30 July 1997,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
An action against the Commission of the European                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998                   was paid,
by D'Odorico Franco, represented by Claudio Mussato, of
the Udine Bar, with an address for service at his Chambers
at 4 Via Dante, Udine.                                              Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     30 July 1997,                                                  relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
     was paid,
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                Action brought on 5 January 1998 by Framalicco Maria
     Communities to pay the costs.                                  Cecilia against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-5/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 72/53)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            (Language of the case: Italian)
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                       Instance of the European Communities on 5 January 1998
                                                                    by Framalicco Maria Cecilia, represented by Claudio
                                                                    Mussato, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at
                                                                    4 Via Dante, Udine.


title: Case C-359/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of 25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup

text:
C 335/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutus-                   3)    If the answer to Question (2) is no, is that payment
oikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the                       nonetheless part of the taxable amount by reason of
                 case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi                                 constituting the consideration (or part of the consider-
                                                                              ation) for a supply?
                        (Case C-351/00)
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                        (2000/C 335/65)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Vakuutusoikeus
(Insurance Court), Finland, of 18 January 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi on the
following question:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                        Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
Does the pension scheme under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of
Pensions Law) fall within the scope of Article 141 EC or of                            Freskot AE against the Greek State
Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-355/00)
(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
    gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                              (2000/C 335/67)
    men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.79,
    p. 24).                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-
                                                                        kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,
                                                                        Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 July 2000,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2000 for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek
                                                                        State on the following question:
                                                                        Whether the imposition of the insurance contribution referred
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                to in the grounds of the judgment, to which domestically-
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                   produced agricultural products and by-products of vegetable
that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping                  or animal origin or originating from fishing are subject and
Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and                     which is levied and paid as income to the competent public
                              Excise                                    finance service, is, given the objective which it pursues, namely
                                                                        organising and implementing programmes of proactive protec-
                        (Case C-353/00)                                 tion and insuring the production and assets of agricultural
                                                                        enterprises, contrary to the provisions of European Union law
                                                                        concerning the free movement of goods (Article 28), the
                        (2000/C 335/66)                                 common agricultural policy (Articles 38, 39 and 40), the
                                                                        freedom to provide services (Articles 59 and 60), permitted
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  State aid (Article 92) and the provisions of the First Council
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973.
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 8 September 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 September
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Keeping Newcastle
Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:
1)    Is a payment made by the Energy Grants Action Agency              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
      to the Appellant, which receives it in respect of energy          Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of
      advice given to an eligible householder, a subsidy within         25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs
      the meaning of that word in Article 11.A.I (a) of the EC                             Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-359/00)
2)    If the answer to the first Question is yes, is that payment
      also directly linked to the price of the supply of energy                                  (2000/C 335/68)
      advice, so as to form part of the taxable amount of
      that supply by reason of the concluding words of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 11.A. 1(a)?                                               European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/39
Commerce (Commercial Court), Foix, of 25 September 2000,                          Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 September                          approximation of the laws of the Member States with
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Réunion des                         regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (1) and
Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup, on the following                            Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December 1996
question:                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                                96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
In the light of:                                                                  Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous
—     the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European                          goods by rail (2) or in any event by failing to inform the
      Communities in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement                            Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Wallonie v Région Wallonne [1997] ECR I-7411, which                         its obligations under those Directives.
      states that:
                                                                            —     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      ‘the Member States ... [must] refrain, during the period
      laid down [in a directive] for its implementation, from
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the
      result prescribed’; and
                                                                            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
—     the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
      Communities in Case C-239/98 Commission v France                      upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
      [1999] ECR I-8935 declaring that the French State has                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
      failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose Directives              laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
      92/49 and 92/96 into domestic law,                                    1997 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                            ary to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions
      can Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                            of the Commission.
      direct insurance other than life assurance (1) and Directive
      92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 [relating to direct life
      assurance] (2) be interpreted as prohibiting any enforce-             (1) OJ L 235, 17.09.1996, p. 25-30 .
      ment (or any procedure) of any kind whatsoever, in                    (2) OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 45.
      particular by means of court-supervised receivership
      or liquidation proceedings before the Tribunaux de
      Commerce, of judicial decisions taken pursuant to legis-
      lation on direct insurance other than life assurance [or on
      direct life assurance] which is incompatible with those
      directives?                                                           Appeal brought on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc
                                                                            against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the Second
(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 (1)
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives      between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)          European Communities, supported by the Federal Repub-
    (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the                  lic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktienge-
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                      sellschaft
    relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
    79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ                                  (Case C-371/00 P)
    1992 L 360, p. 1).
                                                                                (2000/C 335/70)
                                                                            An appeal against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Action brought on 4 October 2000 by the Commission                          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98
        of the European Communities against Ireland                         between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany,
                          (Case C-370/00)                                   the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (2000/C 335/69)
                                                                            ties on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc, a public limited
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                   company incorporated in England with its registerd office at
Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2000 by                    Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey,
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                     Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an                Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a            at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10, Rue Mathias
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                       Hardt.
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                            The Appellant seeks an order that:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1)    the Appeal be allowed;
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    2)    the Order be set aside;


title: Case C-565/14 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2014 by Romonta GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-614/13 Romonta GmbH v European Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2014 by Romonta GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 September 2014 in Case T-614/13 Romonta GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-565/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Romonta GmbH (represented by: I. Zenke and M.-Y. Vollmer, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 in Case T-614/13 and

               —

               Annul Decision 2013/448/EU of the European Commission of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) in so far as Article 1(1) thereof refuses the appellant the grant of an allocation on the ground of hardship pursuant to Paragraph 9(5) of the TEHG (2) in respect of the third emissions allowances trading period of 2013 to 2020;

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a final decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the first-instance proceedings and of the appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               First ground of appeal: Infringement of EU law on account of misapplication of the principle of proportionality
               The appellant submits, first, that the judgment of the General Court infringes EU law because that Court erroneously interpreted Decision 2011/278/EU (3) as exhaustive and in addition also erroneously regarded that decision as proportionate. It maintains that an allocation on the basis of hardship would also be possible under Decision 2011/278/EU as the present case is a case of force majeure. Furthermore, it takes the view that, in assessing the legality of Decision 2011/278/EU, the General Court balanced the legal interests against each other erroneously by according environmental protection a higher rank than the appellant’s existence.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: Infringement of EU law on account of infringement of the appellant’s fundamental rights
               The appellant submits that the judgment is also erroneous in so far as the General Court’s decision infringes the appellant’s fundamental rights, in particular Article 15(1) and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which protect the right to pursue an occupation and the right to property. It maintains that the General Court erroneously assumes that the essence of those fundamental rights is not affected. The appellant takes the view that this is not, however, the case. It submits that without the allocation on the ground of hardship it will not be able to continue its activities as a producer of lignite wax or continue to use its lignite wax extraction installation.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: Infringement of EU law on account of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity
               The appellant submits, thirdly, that the judgment of the General Court infringes EU law because that Court erroneously assumes that the Federal Republic of Germany does not have any competence to adopt a provision in respect of hardship cases (Paragraph 9(5) of the TEHG). The appellant maintains that in doing so, the General Court, however, overlooks the fact that the European Commission has the competence to establish the allocation rules only in so far as it actually exercises its competence. It takes the view that atypical cases, such as its own, are just not covered by the Commission’s rules. The appellant submits that in that respect the legislative competence remains with the Member States.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal: Infringement of procedural law on account of an insufficient or contradictory statement of reasons
               The appellant submits that the General Court’s arguments in respect of the consequences of a provision in respect of hardship cases, the shifting effect to be expected due to an allocation on the ground of hardship and the reason for the specific risk of the appellant’s becoming insolvent are insufficient and contradictory and that the General Court thus infringes fundamental procedural law.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27.

      (2)  Gesetz über den Handel mit Berechtigungen zur Emission von Treibhausgasen (Treibhausgas-Emissionshandelsgesetz — TEHG) (Law on the trade in greenhouse gas emission rights (Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading, the TEHG)).

      (3)  Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case T-76/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2012 –Spain v Commission (Fisheries — Measures for the conservation of living aquatic resources — Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 — Deductions from quotas allocated for a given year on account of overfishing in previous years — Temporal application — Legal certainty — Interpretation guaranteeing compliance with primary law — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Non-retroactivity)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/35

         Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2012 –Spain v Commission
   (Case T-76/11) (1)

   (Fisheries - Measures for the conservation of living aquatic resources - Article 105 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Deductions from quotas allocated for a given year on account of overfishing in previous years - Temporal application - Legal certainty - Interpretation guaranteeing compliance with primary law - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Non-retroactivity)
   2013/C 9/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: by F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1004/2010 of 8 November 2010 of operating deductions from certain fishing quotas for 2010 on account of overfishing in the previous year (OJ 2010 L 291, p. 31)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-6/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative mark FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Existence of trade mark proprietor's consent)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
   (Case T-6/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative mark FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Existence of trade mark proprietor's consent)
   (2006/C 281/58)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Daniel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Defense Technology Corporation of America (Jacksonville, Florida) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2004 (Case R 493/2002-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH and Defense Technology Corporation of America
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 November 2004 (Case R 493/2002 2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and the costs of the applicant, except those relating to the intervention;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to bear the costs relating to the intervention;

               4.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-578/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2014  — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 12 December 2014 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-578/14)
   (2015/C 081/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Belgian Income Tax Code, in the version which was in force for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, infringe Article 4(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC) (1), in so far as that article of the Income Tax Code provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the amount of the dividends which are deductible pursuant to Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares by a company which has not held those shares for an uninterrupted period of at least one year at the time of their transfer, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?

               2.

               Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Belgian Income Tax Code, in the version which was applicable for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, constitute a provision for the prevention of fraud or abuse within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC), and, if so, does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code go further than is necessary in order to combat such fraud or abuse in so far as it provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the dividends which are deductible pursuant to Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares by a company which has not held those shares for an uninterrupted period of at least one year at the time of their transfer, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?

      (1)  Council Directive on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


title: Joined Cases C-7/05 to C-9/05: Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05), (Plant varieties — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid to the holder of a Community plant variety right — Article 5(2), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 — Concept of  level of remuneration sensibly lower than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material )

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/4

         Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05),
   (Joined Cases C-7/05 to C-9/05) (1)

   (Plant varieties - Level of equitable remuneration to be paid to the holder of a Community plant variety right - Article 5(2), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 - Concept of ‘level of remuneration sensibly lower than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material’)
   (2006/C 178/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Defendants: Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05)
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(2), (4) and (5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998 (OJ 1998 L 328, p. 6) — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid to the holder of a Community plant variety right — Concept of a level ‘sensibly lower’ than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material — Remuneration of 80 % of the amounts payable for such production
   Operative part of the judgement

               1.

               Without prejudice to the assessment made by the national court of the other circumstances relevant to each of the main proceedings, a flat-rate remuneration of 80 % of the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material of the lowest category qualified for official certification, of the same variety in the same area, in the event of recourse to the agricultural exemption referred to in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights does not satisfy the condition that remuneration has to be ‘sensibly lower’ than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998.

               2.

               The criteria for determining the remuneration to be paid to the holder of a Community plant variety right are set out in Article 5(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98. Those criteria have no retroactive effect but they may serve as a guide for the calculation of that remuneration with respect to planting carried out before the entry into force of Regulation No 2605/98.

               3.

               In order for an agreement concluded between organisations of holders and of farmers, as referred to in Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, to be used as a guideline as regards all its parameters, that agreement must have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities and published in the Official Bulletin of the Community Plant Variety Office and that is so even if it was concluded before the date on which Regulation No 2605/98 entered into force. Such an agreement may provide for a rate of remuneration different from that laid down, in the alternative, in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98.

               4.

               In the absence of an applicable agreement between organisations of holders and of farmers, the remuneration of a holder of a Community plant variety right has to be established, pursuant to Article 5(5) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, as a fixed amount which constitutes neither an upper limit nor a lower limit.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.