title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-314/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de securité sociale, Evry): Ourdia Djabali v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement - Article 39(1) - Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security - Disabled adults' allowance - Reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
2.5.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 137/5
sugar following the introduction of the Combined                      Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne Ð on the
Nomenclature (3), and on the interpretation of Chapter 30             interpretation of Article 39(1) of the Cooperation
of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by Annex I               Agreement between the European Economic Community
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987                and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                 Algiers on 26 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
Common Customs Tariff (4) Ð the Court (Fourth                         Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                 26 September 1978 (2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Fourth                composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur),              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and G. F. Mancini, Judges; F. G.
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
12 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 which it has ruled:
products consisting of ingredients identical to those                 There is no need to reply to the question referred.
contained in Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit and Sarvit and
in the same proportions cannot be classified within                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature as                          (2) OJ L 263, 27.9.1978, p. 1.
established in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and
consequently do not come within the scope of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying
down general rules for the production refund on certain
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
sugar products used in the chemical industry, as amended
by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/                                         (First Chamber)
88 of 13 June 1988 amending certain regulations                                            of 5 December 1997
concerning the application of the common market
organisation for sugar following the introduction of the              in Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union v.
Combined Nomenclature.                                                           Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus (1)
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(1 ) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
(2 ) OJ L 94, 9.4.1986, p. 9.                                                                 (98/C 137/10)
(3 ) OJ L 152, 18.6.1988, p. 23.
(4 ) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 In Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union
                                                                      (Agents: Amadeu Lopes Sabino and Diego Canga Fano
                         (Sixth Chamber)                              and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð appeal against the judgment of
                       of 12 March 1998                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
                                                                      First Chamber, of 16 April 1997, in Case T-80/96 Leite
in Case C-314/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Mateus v. Council [1997] ECR II-259, seeking to have
the Tribunal des affaires de securiteÂ sociale, Evry): Ourdia         that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
   Djabali v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (1)        being Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus, residing in
(EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement Ð Article 39(1) Ð                  Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social                Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
security Ð Disabled adults' allowance Ð Reference for a               Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                       preliminary ruling)                            in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
                                                                      Cessange Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of M.
                          (98/C 137/09)                               Wathelet, President of Chambers, D. A. O. Edward and L.
                                                                      Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General;
                 (Language of the case: French)                       R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 December 1997,
                                                                      the operative part of which is as follows:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    1. the appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                      2. the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case C-314/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des
affaires de securiteÂ sociale (Social Security Court), Evry           (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Ourdia Djabali and


title: Case T-146/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — hyphen v EUIPO — Skylotec (Representation of a polygon) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a polygon — Genuine use of a mark — Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in components which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — hyphen v EUIPO — Skylotec (Representation of a polygon)
   (Case T-146/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a polygon - Genuine use of a mark - Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in components which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark))
   (2016/C 392/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: hyphen GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail and M. Hoffmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Skylotec GmbH (Neuwied, Germany) (represented by: M. De Zorti and M. Helfrich, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2015 (Case R 1506/2014-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Skylotec and hyphen.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 March 2015 (Case R 1506/2014-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Skylotec GmbH and hyphen GmbH in so far as the Board of Appeal found, with respect to goods in Classes 9 and 25 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, that the proprietor of the registered European Union trade mark should have its rights revoked.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by hyphen.

               4.

               Orders Skylotec to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case C-113/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA. v Commission of the European Communities, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) (Appeals — Competition — Article 82 EC — Concept of an undertaking — Economic activity — International organisation — Abuse of a dominant position)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA. v Commission of the European Communities, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol)
   (Case C-113/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Article 82 EC - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - International organisation - Abuse of a dominant position)
   2009/C 113/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and D. Fioretti, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) (represented by: F. Montag and T. Wessely, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 Selex Sistemi Integrati v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment or amendment of the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by Selex concerning an alleged infringement by Eurocontrol of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to competition

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Selex Sistemi Integrati SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities and half the costs incurred by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol);

               3.

               Orders the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation to pay half its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 February 1998 in Case T-276/97: Guérin Automobiles EURL v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility of the application)

text:
C 113/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Republic Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                     of 13 February 1998                           composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President; C. W. Bellamy
                                                                   and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
      in Case T-276/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL v.                on 16 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  follows:
(Competition Ð Action for annulment Ð Time limit for
bringing proceedings Ð Manifest inadmissibility of the
                         application)                              1. the action is dismissed as inadmissible,
                        (98/C 113/39)
                                                                   2. the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
In Case T-276/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, a company
in judicial liquidation, established at AlencËon (France),
acting in the person of Xavier LemeÂe, liquidator,
represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon,
v. Commission of the European Communities Ð                              ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for annulment of Decision SG(97) D/823182                                   of 18 February 1998
of the Commission of 25 April 1997 rejecting the
applicant's complaint No IV/F-2/34.423 Ð the Court of              in Case T-189/97: ComiteÂ d'entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,              francËaise de production and Others v. Commission of the
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                         European Communities (1)
Registrar, made an order on 13 February 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (State aid Ð Decision declaring aid incompatible with the
                                                                   common market Ð Action for annulment Ð Trade unions
                                                                               and works councils Ð Inadmissibility)
1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible,                                (98/C 113/41)
2. the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-189/97: ComiteÂ d'entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
                                                                   francËaise de production, established at Bry-sur-Marne
                                                                   (France), Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de
                                                                   teÂleÂvision CGT (SNRT-CGT), established in Paris,
                                                                   Syndicat unifieÂ de radio et de teÂleÂvision CFDT
                                                                   (SURT-CFDT), established in Paris, Syndicat national
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   force ouvrieÁre de radiodiffusion et de teÂleÂvision,
                     of 16 February 1998                           established in Paris, and Syndicat national de
                                                                   l'encadrement audiovisuel CFE-CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC),
in Case T-182/97: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission
                                                                   established in Paris, represented by HeÂleÁne Masse-Dessen,
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   avocat at the Conseil d'EÂtat and at the Cour de Cassation,
(Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings Ð                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
          Action for annulment Ð Inadmissibility)                  Chambers of Guy Thomas, 77 boulevard de la Grande-
                                                                   Duchesse Charlotte, v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/40)                              Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Dimitris
                                                                   Triantafyllou) Ð application for annulment of
                (Language of the case: French)                     Commission Decision 97/238/EC of 2 October 1996
                                                                   concerning aid granted by the French State to the
                                                                   audiovisual production company SocieÂteÂ francËaise de
In Case T-182/97: Smanor SA, established at Saint-Martin-          production (2) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
d'Ecublei (France), Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,            Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of A.
residing at Saint-Martin-d'Ecublei, represented by                 Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy,
Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, 7Ð9 rue du               A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
GeÂneÂral de Larminat, CreÂteil (France), v. Commission of         made an order on 16 February 1998, the operative part of
the European Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright               which is as follows:
and Olivier Couvert-Castera) Ð application for annulment
of the Commission's decision of 21 May 1997 not to
bring Treaty infringement proceedings against the French           1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible,


title: Case T-629/13: Action brought on 28 November 2013 — Molda v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/15

         Action brought on 28 November 2013 — Molda v Commission
   (Case T-629/13)
   2014/C 31/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Molda AG (Dahlenburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Vollmer, C. Telschow und A. Schulze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2013/448/EU, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as Article 1(1) thereof rejects granting the applicant the supplementary quotas requested for the third trading period of the 2013 to 2020 emissions trading on the basis of the hardship clause under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality
               In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality, as the prohibition on the allocation of supplementary allowances on the basis of cases of hardship is incorrect in the light of the objective formulated by the defendant and in addition is completely disproportionate to the disadvantage faced by the applicant. In the alternative on this point the defendant claims that decision 2011/278/EU (1) is contrary to European law and is invalid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of subsidiarity
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the European Union’s action must be limited to what is necessary. Contrary to the Commission’s argument, the Member States retain a (albeit limited) right to adopt rules on the allocation of allowances. Those rules, the adoption of which remain within the competency of the Member States, include cases of hardship, such as those under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of European rules on State aid
               In the context of the third plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the fundamental rules of the European State aid scheme, according to which undertakings which are in financial difficulties and which implement a sustainable restructuring plan, may receive financial support in the form of restructuring aid. According to the applicant, the defendant does not have the right to refuse such aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights
               Here, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes its fundamental rights to freedom to conduct a business, freedom to choose an occupation and property, without those infringements being justified by one of the objectives of general interest or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others recognised by the European Union.

      (1)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772 (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case C-202/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Citizenship of the European Union — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State — Right of entry — Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen and in possession of a residence card issued by a Member State — National legislation requiring an entry permit to be obtained prior to entry into national territory — Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-202/13) (1)

   ((Citizenship of the European Union - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State - Right of entry - Third-country national who is a family member of a Union citizen and in possession of a residence card issued by a Member State - National legislation requiring an entry permit to be obtained prior to entry into national territory - Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland))
   (2015/C 065/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Sean Ambrose McCarthy, Helena Patricia McCarthy Rodriguez, Natasha Caley McCarthy Rodriguez

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Operative part of the judgment

   Both Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 1 of the Protocol (No 20) on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to require, in pursuit of an objective of general prevention, family members of a citizen of the European Union who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid residence card, issued under Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 by the authorities of another Member State, to be in possession, pursuant to national law, of an entry permit, such as the EEA (European Economic Area) family permit, in order to be able to enter its territory.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-611/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2010 — Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 December 2010 — Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse
   (Case C-611/10)
   2011/C 103/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Waldemar Hudzinski

      Defendant: Agentur für Arbeit Wesel — Familienkasse

      Question referred

   Is Article 14a(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which lacks jurisdiction under that Article is in any event deprived of the authority to grant family benefit under national law to a worker only temporarily employed in its territory, if neither the worker himself nor his children are domiciled or habitually resident in that Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Case T-204/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/39

         Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) v Commission
   (Case T-204/17)
   (2017/C 161/55)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfa Laval Flow Equipment (Kunshan) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, People's Republic of China) (represented by: A. Johansson and C. Dackö, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/141 of 26 January 2017 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not finished, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (‘the implementing regulation’) insofar as it covers stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings which have a surface roughness average of under 0,8 micrometres on the inside of the tube and pipe butt-welding fittings but not on the outside;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the implementing regulation insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               In the further alternative, annul the implementing regulation in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging disregard of the rights of the defence.
               The applicant submits that the product scope of the investigation was changed between the revised final disclosure document and the adoption of the implementing regulation, to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant submits that the Commission subsequently explained that a material change had been envisaged. The applicant was not given the opportunity of commenting on the change before the regulation entered into force. The applicant claims that the Commission did not, at any stage of the investigation, inform the parties concerned that the surface roughness requirement for products to avoid the application of customs duties could apply to both the products’ interior and exterior surfaces, departing from the European product standards for sanitary fittings. Thus the applicant had the legitimate expectation that the product exclusion corresponds to the stated objective of excluding sanitary fittings, and was thereby deprived of any real opportunity of commenting on the scope of the product exclusion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the duty to state reasons.
               The applicant submits that at no stage were reasons given for the distinction which the Commission draws between sanitary fittings with an interior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres and an exterior surface roughness of over 0,8 micrometres, on the one hand, and sanitary fittings with both an interior and exterior surface roughness of under 0,8 micrometres, on the other. The applicant claims that the introduction of such a distinction means that the grounds given by the Commission for the product exclusion are illogical and inconsistent with the product scope in Article 1 of the implementing regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to fulfil the obligation to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.
               The applicant submits that the distinction made between different sanitary fittings does not appear to have been preceded by a careful examination but appears merely to be the result of an unsubstantiated request from a party involved at a much later stage of the investigation. The applicant claims that, by failing to investigate further the consequences of such a distinction and how it affects the achievement of the objective stated in the recitals of the implementing regulation, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation to examine carefully and impartially the relevant aspects.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.
               The applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when, with the intention of excluding sanitary fittings which do not compete with the EU industry’s industrial fittings, it laid down the criteria for exclusion leading to the exclusion of only a small part of the sanitary fittings used inside the EU. The majority of sanitary fittings are thus subject to customs duties even though they are not in competition with the EU industry products. The applicant claims that the Commission has drawn clearly incorrect conclusions from the material received and has also relied on incorrect information.


title: Case C-412/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 August 2010 — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 August 2010 — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA
   (Case C-412/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deo Antoine Homawoo

      Defendant: GMF Assurances SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (BC) No 864/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), in conjunction with Article 297 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to be interpreted to require a national court to apply Rome II, and in particular Article 15(c) thereof, in a case where the event giving rise to the damage occurred on 29th August 2007?

               2.

               Is the answer to question 1 affected by either of the following facts:

                           (i)

                           that the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were commenced on 8th January 2009;

                           (ii)

                           that the national court had not made any determination of the applicable law before 11 January 2009?

      (1)  OJ L 199, p. 40


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck in Autohaus Ostermann GmbH v VAV Versicherungs AG (Article 104(3) second subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure — Automobile civil liability insurance — Directive 2000/26/EC — Period for insurance undertaking to assess compensation claims)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-447/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck in Autohaus Ostermann GmbH v VAV Versicherungs AG (1)

   (Article 104(3) second subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Automobile civil liability insurance - Directive 2000/26/EC - Period for insurance undertaking to assess compensation claims)
   (2006/C 60/26)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-447/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht Innsbruck, (Austria), made by decision of 30 September 2004, received at the Court on 27 October 2004, in the proceedings between Autohaus Ostermann GmbH and VAV Versicherungs AG — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G. Arestis and J. Klučka,, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (fourth motor insurance Directive) is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule from allowing an injured party to bring a legal action against the insurance undertaking within the three-month period set down by that provision, after the setting of a reasonable period for payment.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case C-438/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/12

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12
   (Case C-438/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-479/11 and T-157/12 French Republic and IFP Énergies nouvelles v European Commission;

               —

               Refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh examination and reserve the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of its appeal which all concern infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and more particularly errors of law concerning the manner in which it was shown that there was an advantage to an undertaking flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee arising as a result of its status.
   By its first ground of appeal, the Commission is of the opinion that the General Court committed an error of interpretation as regards the concept of aid scheme and by failing to take account of the ability of a measure to confer an advantage, which involves an error of law as to the nature of the evidence to be adduced by the Commission in order to establish the existence of an advantage to an undertaking flowing from its status as a publicly owned establishment of an industrial and commercial nature (EPIC).
   The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the simple presumption of the existence of an advantage flowing from an implied unlimited guarantee and the means by which it may be overturned.
   The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law committed by the General Court as regards the scope of the presumption of advantage flowing from an unlimited guarantee: that presumption ought also, logically, to apply to the relationships of the undertaking to which the guarantee is granted with its suppliers and clients.


title: Case C-669/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/13

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-669/13 P)
   2014/C 85/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 (Case T-328/12);

               —

               Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue OXYGESIC and Maxigesic and thus that the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) had not been satisfied. The judgment under appeal is based on a distortion of the facts and contains contradictions which infringe the general rules of logic. It constitutes an infringement of Community law, namely of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. If the General Court had carried out a correct and non-contradictory assessment of the facts of the case, it would have reached the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and would therefore have upheld the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 May 2012.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-286/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 — IDIAP Foundation v Commission (Application for interim measures — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration actions — Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/15

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 — IDIAP Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-286/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration actions - Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - No urgency)
   2010/C 260/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: IDIAP Research Institute Foundation (Martigny, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Chapus-Rapin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Essentially, application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 11 May 2010 confirming the findings of the audit concerning the breakdowns of costs submitted by the applicant, in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 as regards the Amida project and in respect of the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2007 as regards the Bacs and Dirac projects.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-152/06: Action brought on  6 June 2006  — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/37

         Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission
   (Case T-152/06)
   (2006/C 178/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’), namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferential access to public assets for the provision of services included in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that the measures did not constitute unlawful aid.
   The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).
   The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed Article 88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to establish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensation for carrying out the tourist information activities fell within the rules on services of general economic interest.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist information activities was to be considered as aid, it constituted existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compatible with the common market.
   Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council.
   Finally, the applicant invokes an infringement of the duty to state reasons, as well as an infringement of the general principle of sound administration in that the duration of the preliminary investigation would have been excessive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-576/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-576/15)
   (2016/C 027/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ET ‘Maya Marinova’

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 273, Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1) and Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, taken together, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the actual absence of goods which were transferred to a taxable person by way of taxable supplies as subsequent taxable supplies of those goods for consideration by that taxable person, without the recipient of those goods being identified, where the aim is to prevent VAT evasion?

               2.

               Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the failure by a taxable person to record tax-relevant documents relating to taxable supplies received in the manner described above, where this serves the same aim?

               3.

               Must Article 273, Article 73 and Article 80 of Directive 2006/112/EC, taken together, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that Member States are to be entitled, on the basis of national provisions which do not serve to transpose the VAT Directive, to determine taxable amounts for supplies of goods by a taxable person in a way which diverges from the general rule provided for in Article 73 of the VAT Directive and the exceptions expressly provided for in Article 80 of that directive, where the aim is, first, to prevent VAT evasion and, secondly, to determine a taxable amount for the transactions concerned that is a reliable as possible?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-30/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2017 — Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu v Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu
   (Case C-30/17)
   (2017/C 161/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Poznaniu

      Respondent: Kompania Piwowarska S.A. w Poznaniu

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 3(1) and the objectives of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, (1) in the determination of the basis of assessment for flavoured beers using the Plato scale, must the extract resulting from the flavourings added following the completion of fermentation be added to the real extract of the finished product or is the extract resulting from the added substances to be disregarded?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.


title: Case T-463/08: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC HD — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired through usage — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Imagion v OHIM (DYNAMIC HD)
   (Case T-463/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC HD - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through usage - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 238/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Imagion AG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: H. Blatzheim, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 August 2008 (Case R 488/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark DYNAMIC HD as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Imagion AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008


C 166/12              EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.5.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-251/96 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/20)                                                    (98/C 166/24)
By order of 29 October 1997, the President of the Court          By order of 29 January 1998 the President of the Sixth
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the               Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
removal from the register of Case C-251/96: (Reference           Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di       Case C-305/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Rovigo): Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Cordella.         the Cour du Travail, Mons): UniversiteÂ Catholique de
                                                                 Louvain v Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez.
(1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-224/96 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-325/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/21)
                                                                                (98/C 166/25)
By order of 13 November 1997, the President of the               By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-224/96: Promotion            removal from the register of Case C-325/97: Commission
LeÂopold SA v European Parliament.                               of the European Communities v Federal Republic of
                                                                 Germany.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/22)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-238/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/26)
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              By order of 18 February 1998 the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-91/97 (reference for a       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Arif           removal from the register of Case C-238/97: Commission
Altiney v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                              of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/96 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-142/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/27)
                        (98/C 166/23)
                                                                 By order of 3 March 1998 the President of        the Sixth
By order of 27 January 1998 the President of the Court of        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the           European
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Communities has ordered the removal from the    register of
removal from the register of Case C-142/97: Commission           Case     C-146/96:     Commission     of  the    European
of the European Communities v Italian Republic.                  Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.                                       (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.


title: Case C-389/07: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — United Kingdom) — Azlan Group plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — United Kingdom) — Azlan Group plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-389/07) (1)

   (2008/C 313/35)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-70/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/26

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-70/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for methacrylates - Duration of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Statement of reasons - Unlimited jurisdiction - General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment - Proportionality of the fine)
   2013/C 225/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH (represented by: F. Wijckmans and M. Visser, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-146/99: Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 174/3
Fourth, Article 31(3) of the abovementioned law provides that             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
inter alia the obligations relating to advertising and sponsorship
do not apply to services broadcast solely in a foreign language           The Commission’s objections related inter alia to the fact that
without French sub-titles. Thus, those services, although within          although Article 6(3)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1558/91 (2)
French jurisdiction, are not subject to the obligations deriving          provides that the minimum price to be paid to the producer
from the directive. France, however, is required under Article            for raw materials is not to include costs connected with
2(1) of the directive to exercise control over such services.             transport, the Commission services found that the producers
                                                                          were required to pay a part of that expenditure (35%).
Fifth, no implementing measure has been adopted to make                   According to the Commission, that was contrary to the
the provisions of the directive applicable to services using              provisions of the regulations in that such conduct amounted
frequencies not managed by the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovi-            to non-observance of the minimum price to be paid to the
suel, even if their broadcasts are intended for the public in             producer for the raw material delivered.
France.
                                                                          The national legislation on payments for tomatoes and trans-
                                                                          port costs was contained, as far as the 1996/97 marketing year
(1) OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989, p. 23.                                        was concerned, in an interprofessional agreement approved
                                                                          and confirmed in accordance with Italian Law No 88/1998,
                                                                          with which the Commission must have been entirely familiar.
                                                                          The Italian authorities made it clear that in the abovementioned
                                                                          agreement, considering that almost all the tomato containers
                                                                          were owned by the processing undertakings, the farmers had
                                                                          accepted a maximum of 35% of the documented cost of the
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic                   overall transport, including carriage of the raw material from
    against Commission of the European Communities                        the place of harvest to the processing undertaking (at the
                                                                          latter’s expense) in order to cover both reimbursement of the
                         (Case C-146/99)                                  cost of the crates and bins which were liable to be broken and,
                                                                          therefore, would need to be replaced, and that of distributing
                                                                          those containers to the places of harvest. The Italian authorities
                         (1999/C 174/05)
                                                                          also state that the payments of the minimum price for the
                                                                          product were all made entirely in accordance with Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 legislation and that, when the EAGGF had so requested, the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 21 April 1999             relevant files had been made available to it.
by the Italian Republic, represented by Danilo Del Gaizo,
Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                       (1) Decision 1999/186/ec — OJ 1999 L 61 of 10.3.99, p. 34.
                                                                          (2) OJ 1991 L 144 of 8.6.91, p. 31.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision C(99) 208 Final of 3 February
     1999 (1) which excludes from Community financing cer-
     tain expenditure incurred by the Member States in respect
     of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                       Removal from the register of Case C-334/98 (1)
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent
     to which, in determining the total italian expenditure                                       (1999/C 174/06)
     chargeable to the Fund, it made financial adjustments to
     the detriment of Italy, declaring not to be chargeable to
                                                                          By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Court of
     the Fund the sum of ITL 7 421 939 820 for aid for
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     the processing of tomatoes — incomplete payment of
                                                                          from the register of Case C-334/98: Commission of the
     transport costs to tomato producers (item 4.6.8 of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italy.
     summary report for 1995) —, and
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Case C-316/00: Action brought on 22 August 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 302/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
2.    Is it of any significance in that connection whether the                 deadline laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, especially
      lessor makes available to the lessee both the building and               when that Directive makes clear the importance of strict
      the land on which it is erected, or merely the building,                 compliance with these parameters. While the three-tier
      which he has erected on the lessee’s land?                               approach to dealing with noncompliant group water
                                                                               supplies adopted by the Irish authorities offers the
                                                                               prospect of improved compliance in the years to come, it
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                               comes very late by reference to the compliance deadline,
                                                                               is insufficiently grounded in national legislation, and is
                                                                               very far from being implemented at the level of individual
                                                                               local authorities and individual non-compliant water
                                                                               supplies.
                                                                         —     The second major concern of the Commission is that,
                                                                               notwithstanding the new legislation, Ireland’s transpo-
                                                                               sition of Directive 80/778/EEC still fails to properly
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by the Commission                             reflect the binding character of the parameters of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                            Directive in relation to group water supplies.
                         (Case C-316/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 229 of 30.8.1980, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 302/38)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Richard Wainright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
                                                                         order of that court of 28 July 2000, in the case of Bacardi-
                                                                         Martini S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle
—     declare that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                                United Football Company Limited
      Articles 7(6) and 19 of Directive 80/778/EEC (1) in failing
      to ensure compliance with microbiological parameters 57
      (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms) of Annex I of                                   (Case C-318/00)
      the Directive 80/778/EEC in respect of certain public
      water supplies and certain group water supplies identified
      in official drinking water reports and in correspondence                                    (2000/C 302/39)
      concerning Ballycroy, and is further in breach of its
      obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and 19 of Directive
      80/778/EEC in failing, in its implementing legislation, to         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      reflect the binding character of the requirements of               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      Annex I of the Directive in relation to group water                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division of 28 July
      supplies, and is also in breach of its obligations under the       2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 August
      Treaty;                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini
                                                                         S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle United
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    Football Company Limited, on the following question:
                                                                         1.    Are Articles L. 17 to L.21 of the Code des débits de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                boissons (the so-called ‘Loi Evin’ provisions), Article 8 of
                                                                               Decree no 92-280 of 27 March 1992 and the provisions
                                                                               of the Code de Bonne Conduite of 28 March 1995,
Two major concerns have led the Commission to make this                        contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49
application to the Court against Ireland:                                      EC) insofar as they prevent or restrict (a) the advertising
                                                                               of alcoholic drinks at sporting events taking place in
—     The first concern relates to the prevalence and persistence              Member States other than France when the events are to
      of problems of non-compliance with microbiological                       be televised in France and (b) the broadcasting in France
      parameters in Irish drinking water supplies, notably                     of sporting events taking place in other Member States at
      group water supplies, fifteen years after the compliance                 which there is advertising of alcoholic beverages?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 2 July 1998 in Joined Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio, Athens): Anestis Kapasakalis and Others v. Greek State (Directive 89/48/EEC - General system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas - Scope - Situation purely internal to a Member State)

text:
C 278/6              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.9.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               after a stipulated number of weeks of continuous absence
                                                                  does not affect the answer given.
                      of 30 June 1998
                                                                  (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
in Case C-394/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the House of Lords): Mary Brown v. Rentokil Initial UK
           Limited (formerly Rentokil Limited) (1)
(Equal treatment for men and women Ð Dismissal of a
pregnant woman Ð Absences due to illness arising from
                         pregnancy)
                       (98/C 278/09)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 July 1998
                                                                  in Joined Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95
               (Language of the case: English)                    (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
                                                                  Protodikio, Athens): Anestis Kapasakalis and Others v.
                                                                                Greek State (1)
                                                                  (Directive 89/48/EEC Ð General system for the
                                                                  recognition of higher-education diplomas Ð Scope Ð
In Case C-394/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                Situation purely internal to a Member State)
of the EC Treaty from the House of Lords (United
                                                                                (98/C 278/10)
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Mary Brown and
Rentokil Initial UK Limited (formerly Rentokil Limited)
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                            (Language of the case: Greek)
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment,
vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third and                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Fifth Chambers, acting as President, H. Ragnemalm, M.                      published in the European Court Reports)
Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.              In Joined Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95:
Von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has            reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
given a judgment on 30 June 1998, in which it has ruled:          from the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of
                                                                  First Instance), Athens, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                  proceedings pending before that court between Anestis
                                                                  Kapasakalis, Dimitris Skiathitis, Antonis Kougiankas and
                                                                  Greek State Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                  89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of         the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
9 February 1976, on the implementation of the principle           completion of professional education and training of at
of equal treatment for men and women as regards access            least three years' duration (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16) Ð
to employment, vocational training and promotion, and             the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
working conditions, preclude dismissal of a female worker         President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and
ant any time during her pregnancy for absences due to             G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; L.
incapacity for work caused by illness resulting from that         Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
pregnancy.                                                        judgment on 2 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                  A national of a Member State in a situation which is
                                                                  confined in all respects within that one Member State may
The fact that a female worker has been dismissed during           not rely on the rights conferred by Council Directive 89/
her pregnancy on the basis of a contractual term providing        48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the
that the employer may dismiss employees of either sex             recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 278/7
completion of professional education and training of at              1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
least three years' duration.                                              period all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
                                                                          Ð Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
                                                                              on the deliberate release into the environment of
                                                                              genetically modified organisms, and
                                                                          Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November
                                                                              1994 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                              Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          genetically modified micro-organisms,
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 9 July 1998                                    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 23 of Directive 90/220/EEC
in    Case   C-343/97: Commission of the European                         and Article 2 of Directive 94/51/EC;
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
           Directives 90/220/EEC and 94/51/EC)                       2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (98/C 278/11)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 April 1998
                                                                         in Case C-116/96 REV: Reisebüro Binder GmbH (1)
In Case C-343/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of                   (Revision of a judgment Ð Preliminary ruling Ð
Belgium (Agent: Anni Snoecx) Ð Application for a                                  Application manifestly inadmissible)
declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                (98/C 278/12)
period all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Ð Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     modified organisms (OJ L 117, 18.5.1990, p. 15), and
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994                   In Case C-116/96 REV: Reisebüro Binder GmbH Ð
     adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/            application for revision of the judgment of the Court of
     219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified            6 November 1997 in Case C-116/96 Reisebüro Binder v.
     micro-organisms (OJ L 297, 18.11.1994, p. 29),                  Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften [1997] ECR I-6103 Ð
                                                                     the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and P.
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
under those Directives Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber)                   Registrar, made an order on 28 April 1998, the operative
composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) President of                  part of which is as follows:
the Chamber, R. Schintgen, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray
and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate-General: A. La
Pergola, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on                1. The application        for   revision    is  dismissed    as
9 July 1998, in which it:                                                 inadmissible.


title: Case T-334/06: Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Commission v Northumbrian Water

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/78

         Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Commission v Northumbrian Water
   (Case T-334/06)
   (2006/C 326/159)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, as agent)

      Defendant: Northumbrian Water Ltd (Durham, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant, Northumbrian Water Ltd.:

                           —

                           to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 561 732,65, being the principal amount of EUR 443 307,67 together with EUR 10 922,84 as late payment interest calculated at the rate of 4.75 % on the original sum owed (EUR 456 159,71) for the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2002, EUR 99 795,87 as late payment interest calculated on that original sum at the rate of 6.75 % for the period between 1 January 2003 and 28 March 2006 and EUR 17 790,00 as late payment interest calculated on the new principal sum at the rate of 6.75 % for the period between 29 March 2006 and 31 October 2006;

                           —

                           to pay EUR 81.98 per day by way of interest from 1 November 2006 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full;

                           —

                           to pay the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the Commission, entered in 1997 into a contract with among others the defendant for the implementation of the project ‘Generation of electricity by the LR-gasification of dried undigested sewage sludge’ under the Community activities in the field of non-nuclear energy (1).
   In 2000, the defendant informed the Commission that it had decided to terminate the contract because of increased costs. The Commission assessed the work done and considered that it corresponded to the design phase of the project. The Commission tried therefore without success to recover the advance payments received by the defendant exceeding the foreseen amount for the design phase, i.e. the first phase of the project.
   In support of its application, the Commission submits that the General Conditions of the contract do not oblige it to pay more for the design phase than the amount provided for in the contract and that a transfer of the budgetary amounts between categories of expenditure is not possible between the different phases of the project.

      (1)  Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (OJ L 334, p. 87).


title: Case T-307/04: Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Carlo Pagliacci against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/42

         Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Carlo Pagliacci against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-307/04)
   (2004/C 262/80)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 July 2004 by Carlo Pagliacci, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the jury in competition COM/A/1/02 awarding the applicant insufficient marks for him to be placed on the list of successful candidates;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges an infringement of the competition notice, since a number of candidates placed on the list of those to have been successful did not possess the prescribed qualification, directly related to the sphere of agriculture. He also submits that one of the members of the jury worked with some of the candidates on a daily basis. In his submission, that fact placed the relevant candidates in a special situation by comparison with the other candidates and consequently entailed an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. Since it is alleged that the appointing authority had not been made aware of this situation, the applicant also relies on an infringement of Article 14 of the Staff Regulations on that basis.