title: Removal from the register of C-134/96

text:
No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-186/03 P (1)

   (2004/C 314/23)
   By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-186/03 P: Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union.

      (1)   OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-42/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA (Public procurement — Principles of equal treatment and transparency — Directive 2004/18/EC — Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating — Article 45 — The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’  — Statement not included with the tender — Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/3

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA
   (Case C-42/13) (1)

   ((Public procurement - Principles of equal treatment and transparency - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating - Article 45 - The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’ - Statement not included with the tender - Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission))
   (2015/C 007/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cartiera dell’Adda SpA

      Defendant: CEM Ambiente SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as not precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator has failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement to the effect that the person designated in the bid as the operator’s technical director has not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement has been provided to the contracting authority or it is shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-51/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission (System of traditional specialities guaranteed — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Rejection of the request for registration of the name ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (spreadable butter) as a traditional speciality guaranteed — Relationship with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 specifying the conditions for the use of the sales description ‘butter’)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-51/14) (1)

   ((System of traditional specialities guaranteed - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Rejection of the request for registration of the name ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (spreadable butter) as a traditional speciality guaranteed - Relationship with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 specifying the conditions for the use of the sales description ‘butter’))
   (2015/C 213/56)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and J. Vitáková, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau, Z. Malůšková and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/658/EU of 13 November 2013 rejecting an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) (OJ 2013 L 305, p. 22).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-18/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2010 — Agrargenossenschaft Münchehofe e.G. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 12 January 2010 — Agrargenossenschaft Münchehofe e.G. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-18/10)
   2010/C 80/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Münchehofe e.G.

      Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Paragraph 5(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Flächenerwerbsverordnung (Land Purchase Regulations), implementing Paragraph 4(3)(i) of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz (Compensation Act), in the version in force until 11 July 2009, infringe Article 87 EC?


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 79/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                     of 16 December 1999                                  in Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the
                                                                          European Union and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities (1)
in Case C-104/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                      (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi):
Oleifici Italiani SpA v Direzione Regionale delle Entrate
                          per la Puglia (1)                                                         (2000/C 79/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                        identical question)                               In Case C-259/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim
                                                                          (Germany), represented by J-C Schöninger, Rechtsanwalt, Lahr
                                                                          — appeal against the Order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities, First Chamber, of 5 May 1999 in
                          (2000/C 79/07)
                                                                          Case T-190/08, Karola Gluiber v Council and Commission
                                                                          (not published in the Court Reports), seeking to have that
                                                                          order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                          Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities — the Court (First Chamber), compo-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        sed of L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
                                                                          and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
                                                                          R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 16 December 1999, the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-104/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi                   1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provincial Tax Court Brindisi), Italy, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Oleifici             2. Ms Gluiber shall bear her own costs.
Italiani SpA and Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Puglia
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC on
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English special             (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
edition, 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,
President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has made an order on 16 December 1999, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Republic of
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                                        Austria
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 does not preclude the levying on                                        (Case C-412/99)
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/09)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                 An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, 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 Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-549/13: Action brought on 14 October 2013 — France v Commission

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/35

         Action brought on 14 October 2013 — France v Commission
   (Case T-549/13)
   2013/C 367/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. De Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Commission’s reasoning was not clear and unequivocal and, consequently, it did not allow the interested parties to know the reasons for the contested regulation. The applicant claims that:

                           —

                           first, obligation to state reasons for the contested regulation was even more fundamental because the Commission had, for the adoption of the contested regulation, a wide discretion and,

                           —

                           secondly, the Commission was bound to develop its arguments in a clear manner where, by fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate, the contested regulation went significantly further than the previous regulations in that sector.

               2.

               Second plea in law, divided into two parts, alleging infringement of Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation (1) by considering that the market situation and the national and international situation at the time the contested regulation was adopted justified fixing export refunds on poultrymeat at a zero rate. The applicant claims that:

                           —

                           the Commission carried out a manifestly erroneous assessment of the market situation;

                           —

                           the Commission manifestly infringed the limits of its discretion by taking into account, for the adoption of the contested regulation, the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the ongoing negotiations in the context of the WTO, which are matters not included among those exhaustively listed in Article 164(3) of the Single CMO Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).


title: Case T-273/02: Action brought on 6 September 2002 by Krüger GmbH & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 274/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               In addition, the requirement under Article 81(1) EC that trade
                                                                          between States be affected is not met. The arrangements on
                                                                          the Austrian banking market were not capable of affecting
—     annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2002) 2091                 trade between States, and no fault can be attributed to the
      final of 11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571/D-1 —                     applicants with regard to that requirement since they could
      Austrian Banks, in so far as it relates to the applicants;          assume, in particular on the basis of the legal position in
                                                                          Austria at that time and the participation of State authorities,
                                                                          that their conduct was lawful under European cartel law too.
—     annul the first sentence of Article 2 of the decision in so         In determining the gravity of the infringement, the decision
      far as it relates to the applicants;                                fails to have regard to the fact that no binding arrangements
                                                                          in the sense of a price cartel were entered into, and not a single
—     annul Article 3 of the decision in so far as it relates to the      attenuating circumstance was taken into account.
      applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed
      on the applicants in Article 3;
                                                                          The applicants plead that a further procedural error is consti-
—     in the alternative to the first claim, annul the decision           tuted by the decisions and measures of the Commission
      allowing the FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party) as a complain-            allowing the FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party) as a complainant
      ant and the transmission of the statement of objections;            and transmitting the statement of objections to it.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 6 September 2002 by Krüger GmbH
                                                                          & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed                             Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicants — together with six other Austrian banking insti-                                        (Case T-273/02)
tutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on                                       (2002/C 274/60)
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
concerned.
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
The applicants contend that the contested decision is unlawful
first of all because the finding of the facts is partly incorrect,
partly incomplete and therefore defective. The decision thus
infringes essential procedural requirements within the meaning
of the second paragraph of Article 230 EC. In addition, the               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decision displays numerous defects in its reasoning and                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
contradictions. This concerns the choice of the persons to                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
whom the decision was addressed, as a whole, and the question             6 September 2002 by Krüger GmbH & Co KG, Bergisch
why the applicants were chosen on the basis of the criterion              Gladbach (Germany), represented by S. v. Petersdorff-Campen,
of the size of the institutions.                                          lawyer. Calpis Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan was an additional party to
                                                                          the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicants further contend that the decision infringes the
principle of equal treatment since they were discriminated                The applicant claims that the Court should:
against when the persons to whom the decision was to be
addressed were decided upon. They took part in the various                —      annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 25 June
rounds of meetings far less frequently than other banks or not                   2002, reference No R 484/2000-1;
at all, nor are they comparable with other banks as regards
size. The Commission also infringed the principle of due
process and the applicants’ rights of defence.                            —      order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for Com-             Calpis Co, Ltd (formerly The Cal-         —     annul the decision in the open competition COUNCIL/A/
munity trade mark:             pis Food Industry Co, Ltd)                      393 to give her a mark less than the minimum required
                                                                               for her oral test and not placing her on the reserve list;
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘CALPICO’ for goods
applied for:                   in Classes 29, 30 and 32 —                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               application No 225169
Owner of the opposing          The applicant
trade mark or sign:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Opposing trade mark or         German word mark ‘CALYPSO’
sign right:                    for goods in Class 32                     In support of her action, the applicant relies on a breach of the
                                                                         obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was
Decision of Opposition         Rejection of opposition                   based. The applicant argues that the defendant ought to have
Division:                                                                informed her of the marks that she was given in respect of the
                                                                         various criteria that the selection board was required to
                                                                         consider.
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         In addition, the applicant relies on the breach of the legal
Pleas in law:                  —    Likelihood of confusion              framework constituted by the notice of open competition
                                    between trade marks within           COUNCIL/A/393 and the breach of the principle of equal
                                    the meaning of Article               treatment. The applicant argues that the selection board was
                                    8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)           bound to assess her general and professional knowledge and
                                    No 40/94 ( 1);                       qualifications in an interview in Greek. That interview was
                               —    Infringement of the principle        held in other languages.
                                    of the right to a fair hearing.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Degussa AG
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-279/02)
Action brought on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-                                                  (2002/C 274/62)
 Nancy Pascall against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-277/02)
                         (2002/C 274/61)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 16 September 2002 by Degussa
                   (Language of the Case: French)                        AG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Bechthold,
                                                                         M. Karl and W. Berg, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 9 September 2002 by Athanacia-Nancy
Pascall, domiciled in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,            —     declare the Commission Decision of 2 July 2002 (Case
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address                  C. 373519 — Methionine) void, in so far as it concerns
for service in Luxembourg.                                                     the applicant;


title: Case T-362/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Ballast Nedam Infra v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/27

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Ballast Nedam Infra v Commission
   (Case T-362/06)
   (2007/C 20/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Ballast Nedam Infra B.V. (represented by: A.R. Bosman and J.M.M. van de Hel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006, notified to the claimant on 25 September 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), to the extent to which that decision is addressed to the claimant;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside Article 2 of the decision, to the extent to which it is addressed to the claimant, or at least reduce the fine imposed on it by the said Article 2;

               —

               set aside in part Article 1 of the decision, in so far as it relates to the duration of the infringement up to October 2000, and consequently reduce the fine imposed in Article 2 of the decision, in so far as the claimant is concerned;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the claimant invokes, in the first place, a breach of Article 81 EC and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission has failed to adduce any evidence of a single ongoing breach of Article 81 EC. The claimant submits that the Commission has adduced no evidence that the bitumen suppliers and the major road construction companies jointly fixed the gross price for bitumen and that the major road construction companies had an interest in concluding those agreements. The claimant argues that the Commission also erred in classifying as a breach of Article 81 EC the agreement on the standard rebate and the desire on the part of the road construction companies to secure for themselves better conditions than small road construction companies with a less extensive purchase volume.
   Second, the claimant invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the Commission's guidelines on setting fines (1). The claimant argues that the Commission incorrectly assessed the gravity of the breach.
   Third, the claimant alleges a breach of Article 81 EC in that the Commission assumed, on grounds that are incorrect in both factual and legal terms, that the claimant exercised a determining influence on the market conduct of Ballast Nedam Grond en Wegen B.V.
   The claimant concludes by invoking a breach of Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the rights of the defence by reason of the fact that the Commission deprived the claimant of the opportunity to challenge a number of new elements in the decision concerning the claimant's involvement in the alleged infringement during the period from 21 June 1996 to 1 October 2000 inclusive.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case C-361/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Carmela Carratù v Poste Italiane SpA (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work — Principle of non-discrimination — Employment conditions — National legislation establishing a system of compensation for the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment contract which is different from that applicable to the unlawful termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Carmela Carratù v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-361/12) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work - Principle of non-discrimination - Employment conditions - National legislation establishing a system of compensation for the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment contract which is different from that applicable to the unlawful termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration)
   2014/C 52/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carmela Carratù

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clause 4 of the framework agreement set out in Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p 43) — Scope — Concept of ‘working conditions’ — Horizontal applicability of that directive — Concept of ‘State body’ — Interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 ECHR — Principle of equivalence — National legislation establishing a system of compensation for the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment contract providing for comprehensive compensation ranging from 2.5 to 12 months’ actual full pay for the period from the interruption of the employment relations until the date of actual reinstatement — Compensation lower than either the compensation provided for under the ordinary civil law in the event of unjustified refusal to accept work or the compensation provided for in the event of unlawful termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 4(1) of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on directly against a State body such as Poste Italiane SpA.

               2.

               Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’ covers the compensation that the employer must pay to an employee on account of the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into his employment contract.

               3.

               While that framework agreement does not preclude Member States from granting fixed-term workers more favourable treatment than that provided for by the framework agreement, clause 4(1) of the framework agreement must be interpreted as not requiring the compensation paid in respect of the unlawful insertion of a fixed-term clause into an employment relationship to be treated in the same way as that paid in respect of the unlawful termination of a permanent employment relationship.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-341/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Groupe Léa Nature v OHIM — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SO’BiO ētic — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks SO…? — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Groupe Léa Nature v OHIM — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO’BiO ētic)
   (Case T-341/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SO’BiO ētic - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks SO…? - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 388/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Léa Nature SA (Périgny, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos and V. Melgar, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 203/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional Lda and Groupe Léa Nature SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 March 2013 (Case R 203/2011-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Debonair Trading Internacional Lda each to bear their own costs, and to pay the costs of Groupe Léa Nature SA.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-710/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Tafel — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
   (Case T-710/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Tafel - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 363/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany) (represented by: M. Nitschke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Tiertafel Deutschland eV and Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 October 2013 (Case R 1074/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV;

               3.

               Orders Tiertafel Deutschland eV to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-334/09: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen — Germany) — Frank Scheffler v Landkreis Wartburgkreis (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Surrender of the national driving licence after reaching the maximum number of points for various offences — Driving licence issued in another Member State — Negative medical psychological expert’s report obtained in the Member State of residence after obtaining a new licence in another Member State — Withdrawal of the right to drive in the territory of the first Member State — Authority for the Member State of residence of the holder of the licence issued in another Member State to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the said licence — Conditions — Interpretation of the concept of ‘conduct after obtaining the new driving licence’ )

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen — Germany) — Frank Scheffler v Landkreis Wartburgkreis
   (Case C-334/09) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Surrender of the national driving licence after reaching the maximum number of points for various offences - Driving licence issued in another Member State - Negative medical psychological expert’s report obtained in the Member State of residence after obtaining a new licence in another Member State - Withdrawal of the right to drive in the territory of the first Member State - Authority for the Member State of residence of the holder of the licence issued in another Member State to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the said licence - Conditions - Interpretation of the concept of ‘conduct after obtaining the new driving licence’)
   2011/C 63/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frank Scheffler

      Defendant: Landkreis Wartburgkreis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Meiningen — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Driving licence issued by a Member State to a national of another Member State having given up his national licence and having his normal residence, at the time of the issue of the new licence, in the territory of the issuing Member State — Refusal by the authorities of the Member State of domicile to recognise that licence based on a medical-psychological expert’s report drawn up in that Member State on the basis of a medical examination carried out after the issue of the new licence, but referring only to circumstances prior to its being obtained — Whether classification of that report as a circumstance subsequent to the obtaining of the new driving licence capable of justifying application of national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or annulment of the right to drive.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 2006/103/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State, when exercising its authority under Article 8(2) to apply its national provisions on the restriction, suspension, withdrawal or cancellation of the right to drive to the holder of a driving licence issued in another Member State, from refusing to recognise in its territory the right to drive, resulting from a valid driving licence issued in another Member State, on account of an expert’s report on fitness to drive submitted by the holder of the driving licence in question if the report, although issued after the date of issue of the driving licence and based on an examination of the party concerned carried out after that date, has no connection, even partial, to conduct of the person concerned occurring after the issue of the driving licence and relates solely to circumstances that took place prior to that date.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova (Sixth Civil Division) by order of that court of 21 March 1997 in the case of Vincenzo Farina v. Credito Italiano SpA, of Genoa, Italy (Case C-138/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon               which has, in practice, a financial effect equivalent to an
dariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by orders of             increase in the rate of capital duty beyond the ceiling of
that court of 19 and 5 February 1997 in the criminal                    1 % of contributed capital ?
proceedings against ( 1 ) Italia Testa and ( 2 ) Mario Modesti
                ( Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97)                          (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
                           ( 97/C 181 /04 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Pretura Circonda
riale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Ge
Magistrate's Court, Rome, Tivoli Division ) of 19 and                   nova ( Sixth Civil Division ) by order of that court of
5 February 1997, which were received at the Court                       21 March 1997 in the case of Vincenzo Farina v. Credito
Registry on 28 March 1997 and 14 April 1997,                                             Italiano SpA, of Genoa, Italy
respectively, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                            ( Case C-138/97 )
proceedings against ( 1 ) Italia Testa ( C-l 28/97 ) and ( 2 )
Mario Modesti ( C-l 37/97) on the following questions :                                             ( 97/C 181 /06
1 . May the national legislation conferring on the SIAE (')             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the exclusive right to manage copyright impede or                  European Communities by an order of the Sixth Civil
     prevent the import or export of sound recordings                   Division of the Tribunale di Genova ( District Court,
     which have been lawfully marketed in another State ?               Genoa ), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Vincenzo Farina v. Credito Italiano SpA, on the following
2 . In the context of the Single Market, characterized by               questions :
     the free movement of goods and freedom to provide
     services, may the SIAE require payments in all cases
     and circumstances on behalf of authors, relying on                 1 . Whether the Norme Bancarie Uniforme ( Uniform
     recourse to criminal proceedings in order to give effect                Bank Rules ) laid down by the ABI (') for its members
     to that power and enforce its claims ?                                  in relation to contracts for the opening of current
                                                                             account credit facilities — since they are laid down
                                                                             and applied in a uniform and binding manner by the
(') Italian Society of Authors and Publishers .                              banks belonging to the ABI — are compatible with
                                                                             Article 85 of the Treaty, where they make the credit
                                                                             facility subject to conditions for determination of an
                                                                             interest rate which is not previously determined and is
                                                                             not determinable by the customer, and they are liable
                                                                             adversely to affect trade between the Member States
                                                                             and have as their object and effect the prevention,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                        restriction or distortion of competition within the
Tributaria Provinciale di Livorno by order of that court of                  Common Market ?
20 March 1997 in the case of CAR — Centro Acciai Rive
stiti SRL against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la
                  Toscana — Sezione di Livorno
                                                                        2 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in
                                                                             accordance with Question 1 may have on the
                         ( Case C-133/97 )                                   corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening
                            ( 97/C 181 /05 )                                 of a current account credit facility, concluded
                                                                             ' downstream ' by member banks with individual
                                                                             customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to
                                                                             the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tri                        joint dominant position in the national credit market,
butaria ( Provincial Tax Court, Leghorn ) of 20 March                        whose specific application of the rules in question ( in
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 April                   connection with determination of the interest payable
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of CAR — Cen                    on the loan ) is regarded as an abuse ?
tro Acciai Rivestiti SRL against Direzione Regionale delle
Entrate per la Toscana — Sezione di Livorno on the
following question:                                                     3 . Whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its
                                                                             members in relation to the ' all-embracing' guarantee
                                                                             covering the credit facility — since they are applied in
Does        Directive     69/335/EEC (')        and    subsequent            a uniform and binding manner by the member banks
amendments thereto prohibit not only the application of                      — are, taken as a whole, compatible with Article 85
the tax in question when capital is contributed in excess of                 of the Treaty, in relation to the individual clauses
 1 % of the capital contributed, but also prohibit the                       discussed in the grounds of this order, in that they are
establishment of additional taxes on contributed capital                     liable adversely to affect trade between the Member
 ---pagebreak--- No C 181 /4           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
     States and have as their object and effect the                    Republic having brought into force the necessary
     prevention, restriction or distortion of competition              provisions in order to comply with the Directive referred
     within the common market ?                                        to in the Commission's application .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 45 , 17 . 2 . 1994 , p . 1 .
4 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 16 .
     accordance with Question 3 may have on the
     corresponding clauses of the ' all-embracing' guarantee
     agreements and on the agreements themselves
     concluded ' downstream' by individual banks, since, as
     a group, the banks belonging to the ABI may be
     regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of
     Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     position in the national credit market, whose specific            Linz, by order of that court of 26 March 1997, in the case
     application of the rules in question is regarded as an                 of Walter Rechberger and Others v. Republic of Austria
     abuse ?                                                                                ( Case C-140/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /08 )
(') Italian Banking Association .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
                                                                       ( Regional Court) Linz of 26 March 1997, which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1997, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Rechberger and
Action brought on 14 April 1997 by the Commission of                   Others v. Republic of Austria on the following questions :
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-139/97 )                              1 . Does the protective purpose of Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 90/314/EEC (') of 13 June 1990 on package
                           ( 97/C 181 /07 )                                   travel , package holidays and package tours
                                                                               ( hereinafter 'the Directive ') extend also to trips for
                                                                              which, on the basis of the contract, the main
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     contracting party must pay:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
14 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                                ( a ) as a single traveller, in addition to the airport
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli , of its                               security charge ( departure tax ), only a single room
Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Massimo                                  supplement, or
Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of                        ( b ) where accompanied by at least one additional
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                        passenger paying the full price, only the airport
                                                                                security charge ( departure tax ),
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               while he does not have to pay anything in respect of
                                                                               the flight and accommodation in a double room ?
— find and declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             2 . Do such trips also fall within the scope of the
     comply with Commission Directive 94/2/EC (') of                           Directive where they are offered by the highest
     21 January 1994 implementing Council 92/75/EEC ( 2 )                      circulation daily paper of a Member State, exclusively
     with regard to energy labelling of household electric                     for its subscribers, as a ' gift' in an anti-competitive
     freezers and their combinations, the Italian Republic                     advertising campaign ?
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                               If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the
                                                                               affirmative :
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                        3 . Has Article 7 of the Directive been transposed within
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            the period fixed, where the national rules announced
                                                                               on 15 November 1994 were to be applied only to
                                                                               package holidays booked after 1 January 1995 with a
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                       fixed departure date of 1 May 1995 at the earliest,
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                   and indeed
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid                     ( a ) in view of the fact that Austria was part of the
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit                          European Economic Area from 1 January 1994
expired on 31 December 1994 without the Italian                                      and


title: Case C-232/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Workers — Freedom of movement — Use of vehicles registered abroad and made available to the worker by the employer residing abroad)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-232/03) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Workers - Freedom of movement - Use of vehicles registered abroad and made available to the worker by the employer residing abroad)
   (2006/C 131/05)
   Language of the Case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and T. Pynnä, acting as Agents)

      Intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, acting as Agent and P. Whipple, barrister)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Arts. 10 and 39 EC — Conditions for the use for vehicles registered abroad and made available by their employer to workers residing in Finland and employed abroad
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by preventing cross-frontier workers residing in Finland and employed in another Member State from benefiting from the use of company vehicles which are made available by their employers established in another Member State and registered in the latter State on the sole ground that the cross-frontier workers concerned reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,
               and
               by preventing the cross-frontier workers concerned from benefiting, for professional and private purposes, from the use of company vehicles which are made available by their employers established in another Member State and registered in the latter State, while those vehicles are neither intended to be used mainly in Finland on a permanent basis nor, in fact, used in that way, on the sole ground that those workers reside on Finnish territory, into which the vehicles belonging to their employers have been imported,
               the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case C-493/16: Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania — Italy) — Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA: in the presence of: Pamoter Genova Srl and Others
   (Case C-493/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


C 289/20               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.11.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-68/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-84/02 (1)
                        (2002/C 289/38)                                                    (2002/C 289/39)
By order of 3 September 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                   By order of 4 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-68/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-84/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig): Schaper &
                                                                   Brümmer GmbH & Co KG v Bezirksregierung Braunschweig.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                   (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.2.2002.


title: Case T-197/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Grupa Ożarów v Commision (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions — Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Grupa Ożarów v Commision
   (Case T-197/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 301/63)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Grupa Ożarów S.A. (Karsy, Poland) (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and F. Puel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commision of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Grupa Ożarów S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-417/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/26

         Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission
   (Case T-417/07)
   (2008/C 8/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Lodato Gennaro & C. Spa (Castel San Giorgio, Italy) (represented by: M.A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Commission Decision SG/E/3/MIB/frw D(2007) 8690 of 8 October 2007;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is brought against the Commission decision of 8 October 2007, which refused access to certain documents sent to the Commission by the Italian Government in the context of a preliminary examination of State aid, Cases No 701/98 and 824/01, with reference to the opposition to disclosure expressed by the Italian Government following its consultation by Commission staff.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1). It claims in this regard that the Commission erred in its interpretation of that provision, by granting Member States the power to prohibit the disclosure of documents originating from the Member State and held by Community institutions.

      (1)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 35th Civil Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin by order of that court of 4 November 1997 in the case of VR-Leasing GmbH against Margit Bertram (Case C-30/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/13
    receiving such allowance) contrary to Articles 48(2)           Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle (Case C-28/
    and 51 of the EC Treaty?                                       98) and Jean Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux
                                                                   de la Moselle (Case C-29/98) on the following question:
                                                                   Whether, having regard (Case C-28/98) to the date of
                                                                   approval of the plaintiff's Chevrolet vehicle of 33 CV
                                                                   fiscal power rating, registration number 6707 ZK 57, and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabe-           (Case C-29/98) to the date of approval of the plaintiff's
amt by order of that body of 27 January 1998 in the case           Jeep vehicle of 23 CV fiscal power rating, registration
of Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,             number 1438 XX 57, and having regard to the tax
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt                diagrams and figures submitted by the plaintiff and the
               der Salzburger Landesregierung                      observations submitted by the authorities, the system of
                        (Case C-27/98)                             taxation applied corresponds to objective criteria free
                                                                   from any discriminatory effect and not falling within the
                         (98/C 94/25)                              scope of Article 95 of the Treaty.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Procurement Office) of 27 January 1998, received
at the Court Registry on 2 February 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bietergemeinschaft
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 35th Civil
(contractor grouping): 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,
                                                                   Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin by order of that court
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt
                                                                   of 4 November 1997 in the case of VR-Leasing GmbH
der Salzburger Landesregierung (Government Office of
                                                                                against Margit Bertram
the Land Salzburg) on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-30/98)
Is Article 18 of Directive 93/37/EEC ( ), according to
                                           1                                                (98/C 94/27)
which contracts are to be awarded on the basis of the
criteria laid down in Chapter 3 of Title IV, taking into
account Article 19, after the suitability of the contractors       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
not excluded under Article 24 has been checked by                  European Communities by order of the 35th Civil
contracting authorities in accordance with the criteria of         Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional
economic and financial standing and of technical                   Court) of 4 November 1997, received at the Court
knowledge or ability referred to in Articles 26 to 29, to be       Registry on 5 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
interpreted as requiring contracting authorities to accept a       the case of VR-Leasing GmbH against Margit Bertram on
tender even if it is the only tender still remaining in the        the following question:
tendering procedure? Is Article 18 sufficiently specific and
precise for it to be relied on by individuals in proceedings
under national law and, as part of Community law, to be            Do Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of
used to oppose provisions of national law?                         20 December 1985 (1), on protection of the consumer in
                                                                   respect of contracts negotiated away from business
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                     premises, cover a husband who, acting as a negotiator on
                                                                   behalf of a leasing company, causes his wife to sign a
                                                                   declaration of suretyship in their private residence?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 372, 31.12.1995, p. 31.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Thionville by judgments of that court
of 21 March 1997 in the cases of Marc Charreire v. Direc-
teur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle and Jean
 Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                (Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98)                        München (Finance Court, Munich) by order of that court
                         (98/C 94/26)                              of 22 January 1998 in the case of Peter Luksch v. Haupt-
                                                                        zollamt Weiden (Principal customs office, Weiden)
                                                                                (Case C-31/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of the Civil                                              (98/C 94/28)
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thionville
(Regional Court, Thionville) of 21 March 1997, which
were received at the Court Registry on 3 February 1998,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Marc Charreire v.          European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 17 January 2002 in Case C-423/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/29
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second             composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,                 R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate                    General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given
General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given               a judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
a judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                              1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed               all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
      comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996                     1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous                  dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
      substances, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      directive;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   15 January 2002
                         (Second Chamber)                                     in Case C-196/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          17 January 2002
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in Case C-423/00: Commission of the European Communi-                         Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Decision 94/3/EC
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                  — European Waste Catalogue)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                     (2002/C 84/48)
Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the
                          prescribed period)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                           (2002/C 84/47)                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        In Case C-196/01, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                              Luxembourg (Agents: N. Mackel, and, subsequently, J. Faltz):
                                                                              application for a declaration that the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                              bourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of
In Case C-423/00, Commission of the European Communities                      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:                           1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
C. Pochet): application for a declaration that, by failing to                 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32),
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993
necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of                        establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive
9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards                      75/442 (OJ 1994 L 5, p. 15), the Court (First Chamber),
involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in                  composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                       (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General:
provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                   P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
obligations under that directive, the Court (Second Chamber),                 15 January 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-180/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel, S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gĳón, S.A.), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores
                                                                           de Telecomunicaciones, S.A., whose registered office is in
—     annul the decision adopted on 13 February 2003 by the                Barcelona (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation               Natalia Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, Retecal Sociedad Operadora
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case             de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. whose regis-
      R 839/2001-4;                                                        tered office is in Boecilli, Valladolid (Spain) Euskaltel, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Zamudio, Bizkaia (Spain) Telecable
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                  de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from the merger between
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                 Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. and
      Trade Mark number 1864107.                                           Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), whose registered office is in Oviedo
                                                                           (Spain), R. Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., whose
                                                                           registered office is in A Coruña (Spain), and Tenaria, S.A.,
                                                                           whose registered office is in Cordovilla, Navarra (Spain)
                                                                           represented by José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-            The      word       mark       ‘NUR-
cerned:                        SERYROOM’         — application             The applicants claim that the Court should:
                               No 1864107
Goods or service con-          Goods in Class 16, 18, 21, 25 and
                                                                           —     annul the decisions of the Commission of 14 March
cerned:                        28 (e.g. books, clothes, plush toys)              2003 in so far as the Commission took the view that the
                                                                                agreement of 29 January 2003 did not give rise to a new
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the                    concentration;
before the Board of            examiner
Appeal:
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                                proceedings.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 7(1)(c)
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            Pleas in law and main arguments
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           The applicants in the present action are contesting the
                                                                           decisions of 14 March 2003 by which the Commission decided
                                                                           to take no further action on the complaints lodged by them
                                                                           against an agreement between the companies Sogecable and
                                                                           Telefónica on 29 January 2003 which, in their view, gives rise
Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Auna Operadores de
                                                                           to a new concentration by comparison with the concentration
Telecomunicaciones, S.A., Retecal Sociedad Operadora de
                                                                           previously notified on 3 July 2002, which was referred to the
Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A. Euskaltel,                     national authorities by decision of 14 August 2002 ( 1).
S.A., Telecable de Asturias, S.A. (a company arising from
the merger between Telecable de Avilés, S.A., Telecable
de Oviedo, S.A. and Telecable de Gijón, S.A.), R. Cable y
Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A. and Tenaria, S.A. against
         Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicants, the abovementioned agreement
                                                                           of 20 January 2003 envisages the possibility, which had
                                                                           initially been discarded, that Telefónica’s final share of Soge-
                         (Case T-180/03)                                   cable’s capital (23 %) should be greater than the share held by
                                                                           the company’s reference partners. The agreement also provides
                         (2003/C 171/69)                                   that Telefónica will waive certain rights affecting questions of
                                                                           policy arising from the major shareholding of those assets by
                                                                           Prisa and Groupe Canal+. On the other hand, Telefónica would
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         remain a shareholder in Sogecable with effect from the
                                                                           implementation of the concentration operation. Furthermore,
                                                                           with the purpose of assisting the integration of their platforms,
                                                                           Prisa, Groupe Canal+ and Telefónica each agreed to provide
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Sogecable with a loan with profit participation amounting to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 EUR 50 million repayable in 10 years. It was also agreed
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/42              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
that Sogecable would offer its shareholders the option of                       Removal from the register of Case T-253/01 (1)
participating in a subordinated loan of EUR 175 million, to be
underwritten in its entirety by Telefónica. Finally, the parties                                 (2003/C 171/70)
agreed that neither of their debts should exceed, prior to the
concentration, EUR 425 million and 705 million respectively,                               (Language of the case: English)
with a maximum limit of EUR 1 130 million.
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants allege that the              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-253/01: UPS
contested decisions contain manifest errors of assessment of            Europe NV/SA v Commission of the European Communities.
the facts complained of. They also take the view that the
Commission has been negligent inasmuch as it did not fully              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 02.02.2002.
analyse the facts. Moreover, the defendant’s assessment also
infringes the principle of equality in that it diverges from
previous decisions in which it was held that it was necessary
to submit a new notification.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-24/03 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/71)
Finally, the applicant companies allege that the Commission
misused its powers.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber
( 1) Case T-346/02 Cableuropa and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40) and      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     Case T-347/02 Aunacable and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40).          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-24/03:
                                                                        Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.