title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 30 May 2002 in Case C-441/00: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system)

text:
C 169/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
(OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, the           composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
under the EC Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                     on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 The words ‘producers ... who have received the holding through ...
on 14 May 2002, in which it:                                                similar means’ in the second indent of the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 3a(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
1.    Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period,      1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
      all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/       to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
      82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident             milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      hazards involving dangerous substances, the Federal Republic          No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that
      of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            they refer to a producer who is the spouse of the designated heir and
      directive;                                                            to whom the holding has been let on conditions more favourable than
                                                                            market conditions, following the expiry of the non-marketing
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              undertaking entered into by the lessor (the deviser) under Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products
                                                                            and for the conversion of dairy herds, provided that it follows from
                                                                            all the elements of fact and of law which characterise the letting that:
                                                                            —     the main intention of the arrangement is that the holding
                                                                                should continue to be exploited for the benefit of the designated
                                                                                heir and not that the market value of the holding should be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            realised by the deviser, and that
                        (Second Chamber)                                    —     the terms of the legal relations between the parties to the
                                                                                contract are such that the advantage which the deviser intends
                            16 May 2002                                           to confer on his heir is guaranteed in the long term, even if the
                                                                                spouses should separate or the marriage be dissolved.
in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich                     (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
    Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)
(Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant
of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers
who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance
after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered
into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (EEC) No 1639/91)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (2002/C 169/16)
                                                                                30 May 2002
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-441/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                          Ireland (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-384/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-                                       pean high-speed rail system)
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Heinrich Bredemeier and Landwirts-
chaftskammer Hannover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe                                              (2002/C 169/17)
and Irmtraut Bredemeier, on the interpretation of Article 3a(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                                          (Language of the case: English)
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991                         In Case C-441/00, Commission of the European Communities
(OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), the Court (Second Chamber),                         (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 169/11
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by R. Anderson,                 di ordinamento della professione di guida alpina (Framework
barrister): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt           Law for the profession of ski monitor and supplementary
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 provisions relating to the regulation of the profession of
to comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996                     mountain guide) of 8 March 1991 (GURI No 64 of 16 March
on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail                 1991, p. 3), which makes recognition of a ski-monitor diploma
system (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6), the United Kingdom of Great                     subject to a condition of reciprocity, the Italian Republic has
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations             failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/51/
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                 EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas                   the recognition of professional education and training to
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                        supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25), the
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in                  Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
which it:                                                                     of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
                                                                              mermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
                                                                              which it:
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on
      the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail              1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force the first paragraph of
      system, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                      Article 12 of Law No 81, Legge-quadro per la professione di
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;            maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia di ordinamento
                                                                                della professione di guida alpina (Framework Law for the
                                                                                profession of ski monitor and supplementary provisions relating
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                to the regulation of the profession of mountain guide) of
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                8 March 1991, which makes recognition of a ski-monitor
                                                                                diploma subject to a condition of reciprocity, the Italian
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
                                                                                Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
                                                                                system for the recognition of professional education and training
                                                                                to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                             16 May 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-142/01: Commission of the European Communi-                                                   (Third Chamber)
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                30 May 2002
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/51/EEC — System for the recognition of                           in Case C-323/01: Commission of the European Communi-
     professional education and training — Ski monitor)                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
                           (2002/C 169/18)                                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 98/101/EC — Batteries and accumulators contain-
                                                                                ing certain dangerous substances)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/19)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-142/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato): Appli-
cation for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the first              In Case C-323/01, Commission of the European Communities
paragraph of Article 12 of Law No 81, Legge-quadro per la                     (Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
professione di maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia             (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a


title: Case T-255/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by "H" against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 274/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘H’ against the                       In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of the
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                       principle of proper administration and of the duty to have
                                                                          regard for officials’ welfare, misuse of powers in the circum-
                                                                          stances of the case and breach of the Charter of Fundamental
                         (Case T-255/02)                                  Rights of the European Union.
                         (2002/C 274/46)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘I’ against the
                                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                (Case T-256/02)
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘H’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.                                         (2002/C 274/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
                                                                          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
      14 May 2002;
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                          of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘I’,
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of                 represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
      compensation for the damage he has suffered and will in
      future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
      necessary reservations, together with default interest at           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
      the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
      the date of payment;                                                —     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
                                                                                14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
                                                                                claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the damage he has suffered and will in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
                                                                                necessary reservations, together with default interest at
                                                                                the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
                                                                                the date of payment;
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the non-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of his occu-
pational disease, which has been recognised in a decision taken
by the appointing authority on 31 May 2001, on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and under which he received           Pleas in law and main arguments
EUR 35 192,16 compensation.
                                                                          The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
In this action the applicant, on the basis of Article 288 EC              that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the non-
(formerly Article 215 of the EC Treaty), draws attention to the           material damage allegedly suffered as a result of his occu-
non-material difficulties he has undergone since his exposure             pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
to asbestos on the premises of his institution. Those difficulties        Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which he has
take the form inter alia of physical and psychological problems           received compensation.
in his relations with his colleagues and in his family and social
relationships. The applicant claims that in its decision of
14 May 2002 dismissing his request for compensation for the               The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are
non-material loss and damage in question, the defendant                   similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of
disregarded the fact that his occupational disease had non-               Justice.
medical sequelæ in his life and confined itself to dealing with
one part only of his pathology.


title: Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolfgang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG

text:
C 264/18               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
7.    Does the right of ownership set out in Article 1 of                      the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-
      Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human                        selling situation, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz
      Rights (The Rome Convention of 1950) and taken up in                     über den Widerruf von Haustürgeschäften und ähnlichen
      Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the                   Geschäften (Law on the cancellation of doorstep trans-
      European Union proclaimed in Nice in October 2000                        actions and analogous transactions), both as regards the
      also cover intellectual property in the names of the places              contract for the purchase of the immovable property
      of origin of wines and the exploitation of those names,                  and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that
      and, consequently, does the principle expressed by that                  purchase?
      law preclude application of the agreement set out in the
      exchange of letters annexed to the Agreement between                2.   Are the requirements of the rule concerning a high
      the European Community and the Republic of Hungary                       level of protection in the field of consumer protection
      on reciprocal protection and control of wine names (OJ                   (Article 95(3) EC) and the effectiveness of consumer
      1994 L 337), but not included in the body of that                        protection safeguarded by Directive 85/577/EEC satisfied
      agreement, under which wine-producers of the Friuli-                     by a national legal system or the interpretation thereof
      Venezia Giulia region are not permitted to use the name                  which limits merely to the reversal of the loan agreement
      ‘Tocai Friulano’, particularly in view of the total lack of              the legal effects of the revocation of the declaration of
      any compensation to the wine-producers of Friuli-Vene-                   intent to enter into a loan agreement, even in connection
      zia Giulia thus dispossessed, the lack of any general public             with such capital investment models in which the loan
      interest justifying their dispossession and the evident                  would not have been granted at all without the acquisition
      disregard for the principle of proportionality?                          of the immovable property?
8.    In the event that it is held that the Community laws                3.   Is a national rule on the legal effects of cancelling a loan
      contained in the Community Agreement between the                         agreement to the effect that the cancelling consumer
      European Community and the Republic of Hungary on                        must pay back the loan proceeds to the financing bank,
      the protection and control of wine names of 29 Novem-                    even though according to the plan drawn up for the
      ber 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) and/or the exchange of letters                  capital investment the loan serves solely to finance the
      annexed thereto are unlawful to the extent described in                  immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor of
      the preceding questions, must the provisions of Regu-                    the immovable property, consistent with the protective
      lation (EC) No 753/2002 (2), under which use of the                      purpose of the rule on cancellation laid down in
      name ‘Tocai Friulano’ is to be prohibited after 31 March                 Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC?
      2007 (Article 19(2)) be regarded as invalid and of no
      effect?                                                             4.   Where a legal effect of cancellation, under national law,
                                                                               results in the consumer being required, after declaring
                                                                               cancellation, immediately to pay back — in accordance
(1) Read: 23 November 1993.                                                    with the plan drawn up for the capital investment — the
(2) OJ L 118 of 4.5.2002, p. 1.                                                loan proceeds which have thus far not been redeemed at
                                                                               all, plus interest thereon at the normal market rate, is this
                                                                               effect contrary to the rule concerning a high level of
                                                                               protection in the field of consumer protection
                                                                               (Article 95(3) EC) and to the principle of the effectiveness
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                          of consumer protection enshrined in Directive 85/577/
Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the                           EEC?
proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-
   gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG                      (1) OJ L 372, p. 31.
                         (Case C-350/03)
                         (2003/C 264/28)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    hof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Bochum                   Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes
(Bochum Regional Court) of 29 July 2003, received at the                                            und der Länder
Court Registry on 11 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-                                      (Case C-356/03)
gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG on the
following questions:                                                                               (2003/C 264/29)
1.    Does Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1)
      of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of contracts negotiated away from business premises also            European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      cover such contracts for the purchase of immovable                  (Federal Court of Justice) of 9 July 2003, received at the Court
      property which must be regarded as merely a component               Registry on 18 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      of a credit-financed capital investment model and in the            case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des
      case of which the contract negotiations conducted up to             Bundes und der Länder on the following questions:


title: Case C-288/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt (Sweden)) — Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical devices — Prohibition on the exportation of dental amalgam containing mercury and bearing the CE conformity marking — Protection of health and the environment)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt (Sweden)) — Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB
   (Case C-288/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Prohibition on the exportation of dental amalgam containing mercury and bearing the ‘CE’ conformity marking - Protection of health and the environment)
   2010/C 24/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea Hovrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kemikalieinspektionen

      Defendant: Nordiska Dental AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Articles 29 EC and 30 EC and of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting export of dental amalgam containing mercury

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which the commercial exportation of dental amalgams containing mercury and bearing the ‘CE’ marking provided for in Article 17 of that directive is prohibited on grounds relating to protection of the environment and of health.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-468/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Souruh v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/35

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-468/15)
   (2015/C 337/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0006

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 August 2001 in the case of CIBA Specialty Chemicals and others v The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (Case E-6/01)

Official Journal C 335 , 29/11/2001 P. 0021 - 0021

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 August 2001 in the case of CIBA Specialty Chemicals and others v The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development(Case E-6/01)(2001/C 335/07)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 22 August 2001 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 31 August 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of CIBA Specialty Chemicals and others v The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, on the following question:Is the EEA Joint Committee after the adoption of the Joint Statement of 22 June 1995, empowered to decide that Norway may adopt derogations from the existing Community acquis, such as the derogations contained in the Joint Statement of 26 March 1999 of the EEA Committee as interpreted by the EFTA Court in its Case E-2/00?


title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-7/95)

text:
 No C 74/12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                 proven unlawfulness of those measures that the contested
 should :                                                              measure extending the abovementioned Community
                                                                       obligation is also unlawful.
 — first require the defendant authorities to produce the
     documents asked for and specified, expressly subject to           The provisions imposing obligations are unlawful as a
     any supplementary measures,                                       consequence of the illegality of Article 39 (4) of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 822/87 and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2) of
     and then                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 441 /88
 — annul Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3151/94 (*) and              The applicant raises a preliminary plea based on the
     any other act connected to it and/or on which it is based,        lawfulness of Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87,
     on the preliminary objection under Article 184 of the             in so far as it determines the quantity to be delivered for
     EEC Treaty that Article 39 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )             distillation by each producer; essentially, each producer is
     No 822/87, and the fourth indent of Article 4 (2 ) of             required to distil a certain percentage of the volume
     Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 are invalid,                          produced, determined according to the 'yield Per hectare'.
                                                                       Since that rule is subject to absolutely no test calculated to
                                                                       demonstrate actual overproduction or the quality of the
 — order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.                      product, it is clearly unsuitable for the pursuit of the
                                                                       Community's objectives, and it imposes excessive penalties
                                                                       on producers of good-quality wine who have in no way
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                       overproduced.
 Breach of Article 39 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 With respect to the unlawfulness of the fourth indent of
 No 822/87                                                            Article 4 (2 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 441/88 , the applicant
                                                                      criticizes the failure to divide Italy into several production
                                                                      regions, since that leads to failure to take account of the
The applicant claims that the contested provision is
                                                                      special characteristics of the Italian wine-producing areas in
 unlawful because it is not based on the legal premise that it
                                                                      terms of land, production, origin and development.
 should operate to remedy the imbalance of the current wine
year, as required in Article 39 ( 1 ) of the basic regulation; in
essence, it considers the abovementioned measure to be                 H OJ No L 332, 22 . 12 . 1994, p. 32 .
 unlawful inasmuch as the regulation seeks to restore the
 balance of the marketing year 1993/94 by fulfilment of the
obligation to distil in both the completed wine year 1993/94
and also during the new wine year 1994/95 .
Breach of the principle that Community acts should be
proportionate to their aim                                            Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang against
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant claims that the Community legislature
wrongfully sought to restore the balance of the wine year                                      (Case T-7/95 )
 1993/94 by requiring a quantity of wine to be removed from                                     ( 95/C 74/23 )
the market not only for the completed wine year but also
during the new marketing year (the 1994/95 vintage is
already in). The applicant regards that measure as                                   (Language of the case: German)
manifestly and wholly ineffective, having regard to the aim
of the framework legislation; it claims that there is no doubt        An action against the Council of the European Union and
that the measure is insufficient to restore the balance of a
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
market ( by removing an excess of supply compared to                  before the Court of First Instance of the European
expected demand) for the last wine year. The measure                  Communities on 23 January 1995 by Josef Lang, Burggen
therefore appears not to be 'appropriate and necessary' for           ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
the attainment of the objective pursued .                             Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte, Miinster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Unlawful for lack of grounds                                          of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant points out that the compulsory distillation
prescribed by the European Communitiy for the wine year               The applicant claims that the Court should :
1993/94 is a serious breach of the Community rules
governing the common organization of the wine market and              1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
the principles on which the Community legal order is based.                SLOM I compensation for the period from 1 1 February
In the applicant's opinion, it follows from the manifest and               1986 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 88 805,
 ---pagebreak--- 25.3.95            I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/13
    together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May               Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against
    1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as             the Commission of the European Communities
    well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
                                                                                (Case T-10/95 )
    7 910,16 ;
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/25 )
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                                  (Language of the case: French)
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 January 1995
                                                                   by Akli Chehab, residing in Paris ( France ), represented by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Case T-20/94 .                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decision of 22 March 1994 in
                                                                       so far as it restricts to 3 % the additional rate of
Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle                     permanent partial invalidity reflecting the deterioration
against Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the applicant's state of health,
                 the European Communities
                       (Case T-8/95 )                              — order the Commission, to pay the costs.
                        ( 95/C 74/24 )
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
               (Language of the case: German)                      As a result of two accidents, in January 1978 and January
                                                                   1983 , the applicant, who is a former official of the
                                                                   Commission, is entitled to a partial invalidity rate of 10 %
An action against the Council of the European Union and            and an additional invalidity rate of 5 % . Since his state of
Commission of the European Communities was brought                 health had deteriorated, he submitted a request that his case
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 be re-examined . On completion of the procedure set out in
Communities on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle,                   the Staff Regulations, the Commission proposed that he be
Kluse-Ahlen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by          granted a permanent partial invalidity rate of 8 % ; it asked
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten,         for the number of his bank account, which could be credited
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte,               with a sum corresponding to a permanent partial invalidity
Miinster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         rate of 3% , representing the deterioration of his state of
Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .                 health by comparison with the findings of the last Medical
                                                                   Committee which convened on 20 March 1989 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The applicant claims that that constitutes an infringement of
                                                                   Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 9 et seq. of
1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant           the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
    SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 March                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
     1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM
                                                                   Occupational Disease. He also claims that the contested
     81 159,764, together with interest thereon at 8 % from        decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
     19 May 1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the
    proceedings;
                                                                   The applicant states in particular that an opinion given by
                                                                   the Medical Committee plainly affirmed a continuing state
2 . Join the present action to that aleady pending in Case         of 8 % permanent invalidity. That opinion was elucidated in
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                   the additional opinion given by the Medical Committee on
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     26 November 1993 where it was made clear that the
                                                                   discrepancy between the rate of permanent invalidity
                                                                   decided by an expert appointed in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                    medical procedure and that decided by the Medical
                                                                   Committee itself is explained by the fact that the Committee
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        considered that the applicant had a pre-existing
Case T-20/94 .                                                     condition.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the decision in dispute is vitiated
                                                                   by a manifest error of assessment in so far as it restricts to


title: Case C-421/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten by order of 8 November 2000 in the case of the Mayor of the provincial capital Klagenfurt against Renate Sterbenz

text:
C 28/18                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.1.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 (i)    For products listed in the Annex to Commission Regu-
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten by order of 8 November                           lation (EC) No. 3223/94 (1) (‘Regulation 3223/94’), as
2000 in the case of the Mayor of the provincial capital                       replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1890/96 (2),
             Klagenfurt against Renate Sterbenz                               and entered into the European Community from
                                                                              18 March 1997 but before 18 July 1998, being the date
                                                                              upon which Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1498/98 (3)
                        (Case C-421/00)                                       (‘Regulation 1498/98’) amending Article 5 of Regulation
                                                                              3223/94 is expressed to have entered into force, is the
                                                                              customs value of such products to be determined in
                         (2001/C 28/33)                                       accordance with
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              a)    the rules set out in Chapter 3 of Title II (namely
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
                                                                                Articles 28 to 36) to Council Regulation (EEC)
tungssenat für Kärnten (Independent Administrative Chamber
                                                                                No. 2913/92 (4) (‘the Code’) and the rules set out in
for Carinthia) of 8 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                                Title V (namely Articles 141 to 181a) to Com-
Court Registry on 14 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                mission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 (5) (‘the
in the case of the Mayor of the provincial capital Klagenfurt
                                                                                Implementing Regulation’); or
against Renate Sterbenz on the following question:
                                                                              b)     Article 5 of Regulation 3223/94?
‘Are Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty as amended by
the Treaty of Amsterdam and Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and
(2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for       (ii) If the customs value is not to be determined in accordance
sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) in the                     with either of the above, what is the correct basis for the
applicable version to be interpreted as precluding national                   determination of the customs value of such products?
legislation prohibiting any health-related information from
appearing on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs,
products intended for human consumption and additives for              (iii) Is Regulation 1498/98, amending with effect from 18 July
general consumption, save if expressly authorised? (Paragraph                 1998 Article 5 of Regulation 3223/94 on detailed rules
9(1)(a) to (c) and (3) of the LMG 1975, BGBl. No. 1975/86 in                  for the application of the import arrangements for fruit
the applicable version)’.                                                     and vegetables published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                              European Communities [OJ No L 198, 15.07.98 p. 4],
                                                                              valid?
                                                                       (iv) If Regulation 1498/98 is not valid, how is the customs
                                                                              value of products of the type identified in question (i),
                                                                              which are entered into the European Community from
                                                                              18 July 1998, to be determined?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties               (v)    Whether or not Regulation 1498/98 is valid, does
Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                        Regulation 3223/94 preclude the giving of a provisional
court of 19 October 2000, in the case of Capespan                             indication of customs value in accordance with Article
International plc against Commissioners of Customs and                        254 of the Implementing Regulation?
                              Excise
                                                                       (1) of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of
                        (Case C-422/00)                                     the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (OJ L 337,
                                                                            24.12.1994, p. 66).
                                                                       (2) OJ L 249, 1.10.1996, p. 29.
                         (2001/C 28/34)                                (3) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.
                                                                       (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                            establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      19.10.1992, p. 1).
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties              (5) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Tribunal, London Tribunal Centre, of 19 October 2000, which                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
                                                                            p. 1).
was received at the Court Registry on 14 November 2000, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Capespan International plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the follow-
ing questions:


title: Case C-126/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Article 11(1)(a) — Valid commercial reasons — Restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations — Definition)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/8

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais
      (Case C-126/10) (1)

      (Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Valid commercial reasons - Restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations - Definition)
      (2012/C 25/12)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA

         Defendant: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

         Intervener: Ministério Público

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Operations pursuing the ends of tax evasion or avoidance — Meaning of ‘valid commercial reasons’ and ‘restructuring or rationalisation of the activities of companies participating in operations’

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a merger operation between two companies of the same group, the fact that, on the date of the merger operation, the acquired company does not carry out any activity, does not have any financial holdings and transfers to the acquiring company only substantial tax losses of undetermined origin, even though that operation has a positive effect in terms of cost structure savings for that group, may constitute a presumption that the operation has not been carried out for ‘valid commercial reasons’ within the meaning of Article 11(1)(a). It is incumbent on the national court to verify, in the light of all the circumstances of the dispute on which it is required to rule, whether the constituent elements of the presumption of tax evasion or avoidance, within the meaning of that provision, are present in the context of that dispute.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 29 June 1995 in Case C-437/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v. Temic Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH (Customs inward processing relief arrangements - Discharge of the relief arrangements by the placing of goods under the system of processing under customs control - Quantitative limits)

text:
No C 229/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2 . 9 . 95
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                                               of 29 June 1995
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open               in Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the
      network provisions to leased lines, the Grand Duchy of                                European Communities 0 )
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under             (Action for annulment — Act adopted on the basis
      Article IS of that Directive;                                     of Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty — Extension —
                                                                                Admissibility)
2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                                  ( 95/C 229/07 )
       costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto
                                                                        Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado,
                                                                        Abogado del Estado ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                        and Michel Nolin ) — application for 1 . a declaration that
                                                                        the Commission 's decision of 23 December 1992 not to
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   modify the Community framework for State aid to the
                          of 29 June 1995                               motor vehicle industry and to extend its validity until the
        in Case C-391/92 : Commission of the European                   Commission organized a review of it is non-existent or, if
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                   appropriate, the annulment of that decision, and 2 . the
 (Free movement ofgoods — Processed milk for infants —                  annulment of the extension of the said framework by
                                                                        Decision 91 /C 81 /05 ( 2 ) in so far as that decision is the basis
      Prohibition of marketing other than by pharmacies)
                                                                        for the decision of 23 December 1992 — the Court,
                             ( 95/C 229/06                              composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.
                                                                        Schockweiler ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Advocate-General; Registrar, R. Grass, has given a
           published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application;
In Case C-391 /92 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : initially R. Pellicer and V. Melgar,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 subsequently H. Van Lier and V. Melgar, assisted by N.
 Dontas , of the Athens Bar ) v. Hellenic Republic ( Agents :            f 1 ) OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
P. Kamarineas, P. Athanassoulis and C. Sitara ) —                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 81 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 4 .
 application for a declaration that, by requiring that
 processed milk for infants should be sold exclusively by
 pharmacies under Article 10 of Ministerial Decision
 No A2/oik . 361 of 29 January 1988 , the Hellenic Republic                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC                                  ( Fourth Chamber)
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.                                             of 29 June 1995
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers )              in Case C-437/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v. Temic
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch                          Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH ( l )
 and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General; C. O. Lenz;
 L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     (Customs inward processing relief arrangements —
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:                                 Discharge ofthe reliefarrangements by theplacing ofgoods
                                                                          under the system of processing under customs control —
                                                                                Quantitative limits)
  1 . dismisses the application;                                                                      ( 95/C 229/08 )
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (') OJ No C 326 , 11 . 12 . 1992 .                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-437/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 9 . 95           I                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/5
Court, Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl ,
pending before that court between Hauptzollamt Heilbronn                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
and Temic Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH in the                          on 29 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as
presence of the Bundesministerium der Finanzen — on the                   follows :
interpretation of Article 18 ( 2 ) ( d ), the first subparagraph of
Article 18 ( 3 ) and the first indent of Article 21 ( 1 ) ( a ) of         1 . Article 71 (1 ) (b) (ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on                         No 1408/71 on the application of social security
inward processing relief arrangements ( 2 ) — the Court                         schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
( Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President                     and to members of their families moving within the
of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and J. L. Murray                                  Community, as amended and updated by Council
( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ;                            Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 must be
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                        interpreted as also applying to unemployed persons who
judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it rules :                                   during their last employment resided in the Member
                                                                                State in which they worked, even where, in derogation
Article 18 (2) (d), the first subparagraph of Article 18 (3)                    from Article 13 (2) (a) of that Regulation, and pursuant
and the first indent of Article 21 ( 1 ) (a) of Council                          to Article 1 7, therein referred to, the competent
Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward                           authorities of two Member States are in agreement that
processing relief arrangements are to be interpreted as                         the employed person is to remain subject to the social
meaning that a quantitative limitation may not be attached                      security legislation of one of those Member States, not
to an authorization to use the system of processing under                       being the one in whose territory the unemployed person
customs control as a way of discharging the inward                              was employed;
processing relief arrangements.
                                                                          2 . that article applies even where the agreement pursuant
( 1 ) OJ No C 332 , 8 . 12 . 1993 .                                             to Article 1 7 ofthe Regulation came into being when the
( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 20 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                     employed person was already working and residing in
                                                                                the territory of one and the same Member State.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7. 1971 , p . 2 .
                                                                          (-1 ) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber )
                          of 29 June 1995
     in Case C-454/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        from the Arbeidshof, Brussels ): Rijksdienst voor
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
            Arbeidsvoorziening v. Joop van Gestel ( ] )
(Social security for migrant workers — Designation of the                                           of 29 June 1995
competent State in accordance with Article 1 7 ofRegulation               in Case C-456/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(EEC) No 1408/71 — Residence and employment in a                          the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main ): Zentrale zur
Member State other than the competent State —                             Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v. Privatkellerei
          Unemployment benefits provided pursuant to                           Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG ( 1 )
                       Article 71 (1) (b) (ii))                           (Description of wines — Repetition on the label ofthe terms
                            ( 95/C 229/09 )                                'Kabinett', Spatlese 'Auslese ' and 'WeiEherbst' as parts of
                                                                                a brand name)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                        ( 95/C 229/10 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               (Language of the case: German)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-454/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                          published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Arbeidshof ( Higher Labour Court),
Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     In Case C-456/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor                        of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional
Arbeidsvoorziening and Joop van Gestel on the                             Court ) Frankfurt am Main ( Germany ) for a preliminary
interpretation of Articles 17 and 71 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Council        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                      Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV and
application of social security schemes to employed persons,               Privatkellerei Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co .
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                 KG on the interpretation of Article 40 ( 3 ) of Council
moving within the Community ( 2 ), as amended and updated                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down
by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( 3 )            general rules for the description and presentation of wines
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. A.                          and grape musts ( 2 ) and Article 3 of Commission Regulation
Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C.                 ( EEC ) No 3201/90 of 16 October 1990 laying down
N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch,                   detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines


title: Case T-736/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/20

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)
   (Case T-736/15)
   (2016/C 090/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLITE’ — Application for registration No 11 595 311

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2015 in Case R 2771/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15) v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Road transport — Tax provisions — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Toll — Member States' obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15) v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
   (Joined Cases C-497/15 and C-498/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Road transport - Tax provisions - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Toll - Member States' obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Flat-rate fine - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 168/13)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Euro-Team Kft. (Case C-497/15), Spirál-Gép Kft. (Case C-498/15)

      Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out therein of proportionality of the penalties which it covers precludes a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all offences, whatever their nature and gravity, under the rules on the obligation to make prior payment of the toll for use of a road infrastructure;

               2.

               Article 9a of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2011/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality referred to therein does not preclude a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which institutes strict liability. However, it must be interpreted as precluding the level of the penalty provided for by that system.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-263/04: Action brought on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/15

         Action brought on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-263/04)
   (2004/C 201/30)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, by not later than 24 July 2003, with such information as to allow it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case C-72/08: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 1 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/52

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 1 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-72/08) (1)

   2009/C 267/87

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2003 in Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim relief — Admissibility)

text:
6.9.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 213/35
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Agents: J. Monteiro and M. Balta) — application for annulment
                                                                           of Council Decision 2002/973/EC of 10 December 2002
                          of 2 June 2003                                   amending Decision 89/688/EEC of 22 December 1989 con-
                                                                           cerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments (OJ
                                                                           2002 L 337, p. 83) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-276/02: Forum 187 asbl v Commission of the                       Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and H. Legal
                   European Communities ( 1)                               and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
                                                                           order on 25 June 2003, in which it:
(State aid — Tax regime — Existing aid — Decision to
initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC —                  1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
            Legal effects — None — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           2.    Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the applications
                         (2003/C 213/68)                                         for leave to intervene made by the Republic of Portugal, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Spain, the Société Immobilière et de Service Boétie
                                                                                and others, and by the Commission;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Council;
In Case T-276/02, Forum 187 ASBL, established in Brussels
                                                                           4.    Orders the parties which have applied for leave to intervene to
(Belgium), represented by A. Sutton and J. Killick, Barristers, v
                                                                                bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal
and V. Di Bucci): Application for annulment of the Com-
mission decision of 27 February 2002 to initiate the procedure             (1 ) OJ C 55 of 8 March 2003.
laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of Belgian provisions
concerning coordination centres, the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
on 2 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                                              INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                         of 31 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                               in Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Application for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/70)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 25 June 2003
                                                                           In Case T-65/03 R: Fondation Alsace, having its registered
in Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL v Council of the
                                                                           office in Strasbourg (France), represented by F. Ruhlmann,
                       European Union ( 1)
                                                                           lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Giolito and G. Wilms) — application for suspension
(Decision 2002/973/EC — Dock dues — Action for annul-                      of the operation of the decision of the Commission of
                     ment — Inadmissibility)                               20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation Alsace to repay to
                                                                           it EUR 18 000 following its breach of subsidy agreement PSS*/
                         (2003/C 213/69)                                   0534 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                                                                           order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
In Case T-5/03 Ayassami et Fils EURL, established at Saint-                2.    Costs are reserved.
François (France), and 23 other applicants, represented by
J.S. Dagnon, avocat, against Council of the European Union


title: Case C-412/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 34(1), 75 and 77(1) — Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET — Claiming seniority — Refusal)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/8

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-412/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 34(1), 75 and 77(1) - Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET - Claiming seniority - Refusal))
   2014/C 261/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-210/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (Road transport — Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph — Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality of the penalty)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
   (Case C-210/10) (1)

   (Road transport - Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph - Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties - Flat-rate fine - Proportionality of the penalty)
   2012/C 80/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Márton Urbán

      Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság — Interpretation of Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1) and of Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L370, p. 8) — National legislation imposing a fine of the same amount for all breaches of the rules on the use of the tachograph regardless of the seriousness of the breach in question and without allowing any possible defence — Obligation on Member States to impose proportionate penalties

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons (a közúti árufuvarozáshoz és személyszállításhoz kapcsolódó egyes rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről szóló 57/2007, Korm. Rendelet) of 31 March 2007, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all breaches, no matter how serious, of the rules on the use of record sheets laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006.

               2.

               The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 of 31 March 2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons, which lays down strict liability. By contrast, that requirement must be interpreted as precluding the severity of the penalty provided for by that system.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 1998 in Case C-385/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 93/118/EC and 94/59/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
5.12.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 378/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 15 October 1998                                                      of 15 October 1998
      in Case C-385/97: Commission of the European
                                                                            in Case C-386/97: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
                                                                                Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directives 93/118/EC and 94/59/EC Ð Failure to                       (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
            transpose within the prescribed period)                  Directive 95/23/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                        (98/C 378/09)
                                                                                (98/C 378/10)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-385/97: Commission of the European                                   published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v. Hellenic
Republic (Agent: Nana Dafniou, Dimitris Papa-
georgopoulos and Foteini Dedousi) Ð Application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          In Case C-386/97: Commission of the European
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v. Hellenic
necessary to comply with: Council Directive 93/119/EC of             Republic (Agents: Nana Dafniou, Ioannis Chalkias and
22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                 Foteini Dedousi) Ð Application for a declaration that, by
financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat           failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,
and poultrymeat (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15), and                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Commission Directive 94/59/EC of 2 December 1994                     comply with Council Directive 95/23/EC of 22 June 1995
amending for the third time the Annexes to Council                   amending Directive 64/433/EEC on conditions for the
Directive 77/96/EEC on the examination for Trichinae                 production and marketing of fresh meat (OJ L 243,
(Trichinelle spiralis) upon importation from third                   11.10.1995, p. 7), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
countries of fresh meat derived from domestic swine (OJ              its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, Ð
L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18), the Hellenic Republic has failed           the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those              Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
directives Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                 Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch,               Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R.                which it:
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October
1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed               period the laws, regulations and administrative
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/
     93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 amending Directive                     433/EEC on conditions for the production and
     85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and                 marketing of fresh meat, the Hellenic Republic has
     controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, the Hellenic                 failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;
                                                                     2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.


title: Case T-84/07: Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem v Council

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/26

         Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’v Council
   (Case T-84/07)
   (2007/C 117/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Open Joint Stock Company Mineral and Chemical Company ‘EuroChem ’(Moscow, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1 thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested regulation; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a Russian producer and exporter of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Community institutions established the normal value for the applicant wrongly and made a wrong comparison with the export price and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping. The Community institutions thereby committed a series of manifest errors of assessment and violated fundamental principles of Community law.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Community institutions violated Article 11(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to carry out an interim review in conjunction with the expiry review under Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and by adopting the contested regulation extending the duties at their original level, whilst having had the duty and the possibility to initiate an interim review either ex-officio or pursuant to sufficient evidence provided by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).