title: Case C-168/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 51 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2006/123/EC — Scope — Services in the internal market — Directive 2009/40/EC — Access to vehicle roadworthiness testing activities — Exercise by a private body — Activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Prior authorisation scheme — Overriding reasons relating to the public interest — Road safety — Territorial distribution — Minimum distance between roadworthiness testing centres — Maximum market share — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Coherence — Proportionality)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE v OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña
   (Case C-168/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 51 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Services in the internal market - Directive 2009/40/EC - Access to vehicle roadworthiness testing activities - Exercise by a private body - Activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Prior authorisation scheme - Overriding reasons relating to the public interest - Road safety - Territorial distribution - Minimum distance between roadworthiness testing centres - Maximum market share - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Coherence - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 406/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Grupo Itevelesa SL, Applus Iteuve Technology, Certio ITV SL, Asistencia Técnica Industrial SAE

      Defendants: OCA Inspección Técnica de Vehículos SA, Generalidad de Cataluña

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as meaning that vehicle roadworthiness testing activities are excluded from the scope of application of that directive.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the activities of vehicle roadworthiness testing centres, such as those covered by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, are not connected with the exercise of official authority within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that the operators of those centres have the power to take vehicles off the road in cases where vehicles display, during the control, safety defects creating an imminent danger.

               3.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the authorisation for an undertaking or group of undertakings to open a vehicle roadworthiness testing centre subject to the condition, first, that there is a minimum distance between that centre and centres belonging to that undertaking or group of undertakings which are already authorised and, secondly, that that undertaking or group of undertakings will, if such an authorisation is granted, not hold a market share in excess of 50 %, unless it is established that that condition is genuinely appropriate in order to achieve the objectives of consumer protection and road safety and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose, these being matters for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case T-557/16: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — Belis v Commission

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/31

         Order of the General Court of 12 January 2017 — Belis v Commission
   (Case T-557/16) (1)

   (2017/C 070/41)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-97/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016.


title: Case C-157/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 26 March 2013 — Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB, in liquidation

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 26 March 2013 — Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB, in liquidation
   (Case C-157/13)
   2013/C 156/36
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH

      Respondent on a point of law: Kintra UAB, in liquidation

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where an action is brought by an insolvency administrator, acting in the interests of all the creditors of the undertaking and seeking to restore the undertaking’s solvency and to increase the amount of the assets of the insolvent undertaking so that as many creditors’ claims as possible may be satisfied — whilst it should be noted that the same effects are also sought, for instance, by an insolvency administrator’s actions to set transactions aside (actio Pauliana), which have been recognised as closely connected with the insolvency proceedings — and given the fact that in the case at issue payment of a sum owed is claimed under the CMR Convention and the Lithuanian Civil Code (general provisions of civil law) for the international carriage of goods that was performed, is that action to be considered to be connected closely (by direct link) with the claimant’s insolvency proceedings, must jurisdiction to hear it be determined in accordance with the rules of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) and does it fall within the exception to application of Regulation No 44/2001? (2)

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas requests the Court to explain whether, where the obligation at issue (the defendant’s obligation, based on the improper performance of its contractual obligations, to pay the sum owed and default interest to the insolvent claimant for the international carriage of goods) has arisen prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings in respect of the claimant, Article 44(3)(a) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be relied upon and this regulation is inapplicable because jurisdiction over the case is established in accordance with Article 31 of the CMR Convention, as provisions of a specialised convention.

               3.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative and the dispute under consideration falls within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas requests the Court to explain whether, in the present instance, inasmuch as Article 31(1) of the CMR Convention and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 do not conflict with each other, it should be considered that, upon placing the relations at issue within the scope of the CMR Convention (the specialised convention), the legal rules in Article 31 of the CMR Convention are to be applied when establishing which State’s courts have jurisdiction over the action under consideration, if the legal rules in Article 31(1) of the CMR Convention do not run counter to the fundamental objectives of Regulation No 44/2001, do not lead to results which are less favourable for achieving sound operation of the internal market and are sufficiently clear and precise.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-416/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament
   (Case T-416/03) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No consultation of the previous immediate superior - Statement of reasons - Action for compensation - Late establishment - Non-material damage - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 331/72)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. de Wachter and M. Mustapha Pacha, Agents)
   Re:
   In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament, for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and, second, application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-88/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/4

         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-88/06)
   (2006/C 108/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)
   Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 89/655/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 19 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 195, 19/07/2001, p. 46


title: Case T-135/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/50

         Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission
   (Case T-135/17)
   (2017/C 144/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test;

                           —

                           second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights.


title: Case C-148/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova by order of that court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova by order of that court of 11 February 2004 in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova (1)

   (Case C-148/04)
   (2004/C 118/60)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Commission, Genoa) of 11 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 23 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Commission Decision 2002/581/EC (2) of 11 December 2001 (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27) invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the provisions of the Ciampi Law and the related legislative decree regarding banks are compatible with the Common Market, contrary to the opinion of the European Commission, or do they in any case fall within the scope of the derogations provided for by Article 87(3)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty?

               2.

               In particular, is Article 4 of the above-mentioned decision invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the Commission:

                           a)

                           failed in its duty to provide adequate reasons in accordance with Article 253 of the EC Treaty; and/or

                           b)

                           infringed the principle of legitimate expectations; and/or

                           c)

                           infringed the principle of proportionality?

               3.

               In any event, does a correct interpretation of Article m87 et seq. of the EC Treaty, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and the general principles of Community law, in particular those mentioned in the grounds of the order for reference, preclude the application of Article 1 of Decree Law 282 of 24 December 2002 (converted into Law No 27 of 21 February 2003 enacting ‘Urgent provisions regarding Community and fiscal measures, revenues and accounting procedures’ in Suppl. ord. No 29 to Gazzetta Ufficiale No 44 of 22 February 2003)?

      (1)  OJ L 184, 13.7.2002, p. 27.

      (2)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-237/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/60

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission
   (Case T-237/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/72)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Steinbeis Papier GmbH (Glückstadt, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Steinbeis Papier GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-282/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-282/15)
   (2015/C 294/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) in conjunction with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions which prohibit the manufacture or processing and/or marketing of a food supplement with amino acids (here: L-histidine), unless a temporary derogation has been issued at the discretion of the national authority subject to specific additional factual requirements?

               2.

               Does the scheme of Articles 14, 6, 7, 53 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety mean that national bans on individual foods or food ingredients may only be issued under the conditions set out therein, and does this preclude a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above?

               3.

               Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (2) to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision as set out at 1 above?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 404, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 October 2002 in Case C-94/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, Third party: Commission of the European Communities (Competition law — Article 14(3) and (6) of Regulation No 17 — Commission decision ordering an investigation — Provision of assistance by national authorities — Interpretation of the judgment of 21 September 1989 in Hoechst v Commission — General principles — Protection against arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public authorities in the private activities of a legal person — Scope of the review which a competent national court is required to carry out for the purposes of authorising coercive measures against undertakings — Commission's duty to provide information — Duty to cooperate in good faith)

text:
7.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 305/3
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                       the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is                  Frères SA and Directeur général de la concurrence, de la
founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the                  consommation et de la répression des fraudes; Third party:
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President             Commission of the European Communities, on the interpret-
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,                      ation of Article 14 of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,                     6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles 85
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                                  p. 87) and of the judgment in Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88
                                                                            Hoechst v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, the Court, composed
                                                                            of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the      M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                            C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                   P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
                                                                            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                            L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
is to be interpreted as meaning that capital duty is chargeable on
payments made by a parent company to a capital company, which is            judgment on 22 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
increasing its assets by the issue of dividend certificates, in order to
enable the acquisition of such certificates by a subsidiary of that
parent company.
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                            1.    In accordance with the general principle of Community law
                                                                                affording protection against arbitrary or disproportionate inter-
                                                                                vention by public authorities in the sphere of the private
                                                                                activities of any person, whether natural or legal, a national
                                                                                court having jurisdiction under domestic law to authorise entry
                                                                                upon and seizures at the premises of undertakings suspected of
                                                                                having infringed the competition rules is required to verify that
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           the coercive measures sought in pursuance of a request by the
                                                                                Commission for assistance under Article 14(6) of Regulation
                        of 22 October 2002                                        No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962: First Regulation
                                                                                implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty are not arbitrary
                                                                                or disproportionate to the subject-matter of the investigation
in Case C-94/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          ordered. Without prejudice to any rules of domestic law
the Cour de cassation): Roquette Frères SA v Directeur                            governing the implementation of coercive measures, Community
général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la                            law precludes review by the national court of the justification of
répression des fraudes, Third party: Commission of the                            those measures beyond what is required by the foregoing general
                    European Communities ( 1)                                     principle.
(Competition law — Article 14(3) and (6) of Regulation
No 17 — Commission decision ordering an investigation —
Provision of assistance by national authorities — Interpret-
ation of the judgment of 21 September 1989 in Hoechst v                     2.    Community law requires the Commission to ensure that the
Commission — General principles — Protection against                              national court in question has at its disposal all the information
arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public auth-                        which it needs in order to carry out the review which it is
orities in the private activities of a legal person — Scope of                    required to undertake. In that regard, the information supplied
the review which a competent national court is required to                        by the Commission must in principle include:
carry out for the purposes of authorising coercive measures
against undertakings — Commission’s duty to provide
        information — Duty to cooperate in good faith)
                           (2002/C 305/04)                                        —     a description of the essential features of the suspected
                                                                                infringement, that is to say, at the very least, an indication
                     (Language of the case: French)                                     of the market thought to be affected and of the nature of
                                                                                the suspected restrictions of competition;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                —     explanations concerning the manner in which the under-
In Case C-94/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                            taking at which the coercive measures are aimed is thought
by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in                           to be involved in the infringement in question;
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/4                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
      —      detailed explanations showing that the Commission                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
             possesses solid factual information and evidence providing
             grounds for suspecting such infringement on the part of                                       (Sixth Chamber)
             the undertaking concerned;
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
      —      as precise as possible an indication of the evidence sought,
             of the matters to which the investigation must relate and          in Case C-138/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
             of the powers conferred on the Community investigators             the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Solida Raiffeisen Immobili-
             and                                                                en Leasing GmbH, Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                                und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
                                                                                Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland ( 1)
      —      in the event that the assistance of the national authorities
             is requested by the Commission as a precautionary                  (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
             measure, in order to overcome any opposition on the part           capital — Capital duty — Contribution of assets of any kind
             of the undertaking concerned, explanations enabling the            — Meaning — Acquisition by a non-member of dividend
             national court to satisfy itself that, if authorisation for the                 certificates issued by a capital company)
             coercive measures were not granted on precautionary
             grounds, it would be impossible, or very difficult, to                                         (2002/C 305/05)
             establish the facts amounting to the infringement.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
3.    On the other hand, the national court may not demand that it
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      be provided with the evidence in the Commission’s file on which
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      the latter’s suspicions are based.
4.    Where the national court considers that the information                   In Case C-138/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      communicated by the Commission does not fulfil the require-               EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
      ments referred to in point 2 of this operative part, it cannot,           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      without violating Article 14(6) of Regulation No 17 and                   Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien Leasing GmbH, Tech Gate Vienna
      Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), simply dismiss            Wissenschafts- und Technologiepark GmbH and Finanzlandes-
      the application brought before it. In such circumstances, it is           direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland, on the
      required as rapidly as possible to inform the Commission, or              interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 69/335/
      the national authority which has brought the latter’s request             EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
      before it, of the difficulties encountered, where necessary by            of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as
      asking for any clarification which it may need in order to carry          amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of
      out the review which it is to undertake. Not until any such               the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
      clarification is forthcoming, or the Commission fails to take any         Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
      practical steps in response to its request, may the national court        which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21,
      in question refuse to grant the assistance sought on the ground           and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
      that, in the light of the information available to it, it is unable       of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen
      to hold that the coercive measures envisaged are not arbitrary            (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
      or disproportionate to the subject-matter of those measures.              Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                                Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
5.    The information to be provided by the Commission to the
      national court may be contained either in the investigation               Article 5(1)(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
      decision itself or in the request made to the national authorities        concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the
      under Article 14(6) of Regulation No 17, or indeed in an                  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
      answer — even one given orally — to a question put by that                the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the
      court.                                                                    adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                                is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘assets of any kind
                                                                                contributed or to be contributed by the members’ used therein covers
                                                                                payments made to a capital company, which is increasing its assets
                                                                                by the issue of dividend certificates, by a non-member of that company
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                     which wishes to acquire such certificates.
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 1998 in Case C-184/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 30 of the EC Treaty)

text:
C 397/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 22 October 1998                                                   of 22 October 1998
in Case C-154/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-184/96: Commission of the European
the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Louis Wolfs v. Office                         Communities v. French Republic (1)
               National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Directive 79/7/EEC Ð Equal treatment Ð Old-age and                                   Article 30 of the EC Treaty)
retirement pensions Ð Method of calculation Ð
                       Pensionable age)                                                       (98/C 397/03)
                        (98/C 397/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-184/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francis
                                                                     Pasquier) v. French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins
In Case C-154/96, Reference to the Court under                       and Gauthier Mignot) Ð application for a declaration
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal du Travail,             that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August 1993
Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                relating to preparations with foie gras as a base without
pending before that court between: Louis Wolfs and Office            taking account of the contents of the Commission's
National des Pensions (ONP) Ð application for the                    detailed opinion and reasoned opinion concerning mutual
interpretation of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1)(a) of                recognition, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the                obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty Ð the Court
progressive implementation of the principle of equal                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President
treatment for men and women in matters of social security            of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray
(OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),              (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A.
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,             La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur)               Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;             22 October 1998, in which it:
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1998, in
which it rules:
                                                                     1. Declares that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of
                                                                          9 August 1993 relating to preparations with foie gras
                                                                          as a base without including in it a mutual recognition
Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of                          clause for products coming from a Member State and
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of                     complying with the rules laid down by that State, the
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning                 under Article 30 of the Treaty;
that, if national legislation has maintained a different
pensionable age for male and female workers, the Member
State concerned is entitled to calculate the amount of
pension differently depending on the worker's sex.                   2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.                                              (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case T-622/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/33

         Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)
   (Case T-622/15)
   (2016/C 007/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: N. Weber and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘EXHAUST-GARD’ — Application for registration No 11 747 409

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 196/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 75of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-66/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant — Interpretation of the terms resident and staying in the executing Member State)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/18

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski
   (Case C-66/08) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant - Interpretation of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ in the executing Member State)
   (2008/C 223/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Szymon Kozłowski
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of execution of a sentence of imprisonment in relation to a person staying or residing in the Member State of execution — Concepts of ‘residence’ and ‘staying’ — Interpretation of Article 6(1) EU in conjunction with Articles 12 EC and 17 EC — National legislation which allows requested persons to be treated differently by the executing judicial authority, where they do not consent to their surrender, depending whether they are a national of the Member State of execution or of another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, is to be interpreted to the effect that:

               —

               a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence;

               —

               in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-378/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad in Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (VAT — Capital goods acquired by a body governed by public law — Public authority — Transaction engaged in as taxable person and transaction engaged in as non-taxable person — Right to adjustment and deduction)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-378/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad in Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (VAT - Capital goods acquired by a body governed by public law - Public authority - Transaction engaged in as taxable person and transaction engaged in as non-taxable person - Right to adjustment and deduction)
   (2005/C 217/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-378/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings between Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   A body governed by public law which purchases capital goods as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, that is to say as a non-taxable person, and subsequently sells those goods as a taxable person, is not entitled, in respect of that sale, to a right of adjustment based on Article 20 of that directive in order to deduct the VAT paid on the purchase of those goods.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by order of that court of 20 January 1998, in the case of Questore di Verona (Chief of Police of Verona) v. Diego Zenatti (Case C-67/98)

text:
C 151/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.5.98
    of equal treatment in relation to the second tendering          Reference for a preliminary ruling by Tribunal de Grande
    procedure, and error in law in relation to the evidence         Instance (First Chamber), Lyon, by judgment of that court
    that the principle of equal treatment was infringed at          of 25 February 1998, in the case of SA Gougenheim
    the time of the second tendering procedure,                     Imprimerie PubliciteÂ v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du
                                                                                Rhône
Ð infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC)                                     (Case C-72/98)
    No 3389/73 (3) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 151/10)
    No 727/70 (4) concerning the Commission's wide
    discretion and its right not to accept favourable
    tenders made in tendering procedures (contested
    Commission decisions of 7 August and 16 November
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    1990), and incorrect appraisal as to whether the
                                                                    European Communities by an judgment of the First
    contested decisions are measures of economic policy,
                                                                    Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional
                                                                    Court), Lyon, which was received at the Court Registry on
Ð infringement of the audi alteram partem principle and             16 March 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SA
    of the principle of equality of the parties,                    Gougenheim Imprimerie PubliciteÂ v. Directeur des Services
                                                                    Fiscaux du Rhône, on the following questions:
Ð inappropriate application to the actual events of the
    prohibition of discrimination (principle of equal
                                                                    1. Where a Directive (Council Directive 73/80/EEC (1))
    treatment) and of the increase of the guarantee at the
                                                                        amends an earlier Directive (Council Directive 69/335/
    time of the fourth tendering procedure,
                                                                        EEC (2)) and specifies that the capital duty with which
                                                                        they are concerned is to be 1 % as from 1 January
Ð infringement and incorrect legal assessment of the                    1976, and the domestic law of a Member State
    validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 395/                     maintains a higher rate, and where in particular a
    90 (5) regarding the reduction of the time limit                    third Directive (Council Directive 85/303/EEC (3))
    in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                         later provides that the Member States are to exempt
    No 3389/73.                                                         from capital duty transactions which were, as at 1 July
                                                                        1984, exempted or taxed at a rate of 0,50 % or less,
                                                                        must it be considered in the absence of a rate
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998, p. 23.
                                                                        applicable under domestic law:
(2) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 345, 15.12.1973, p. 47.
(4) OJ L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 42, 16.2.1990, p. 46.                                          Ð either that, as a result of non-transposition into
                                                                            domestic law of the rate fixed by the Community
                                                                            provision and by reason of the principle of non-
                                                                            application of downward direct effect', no legally
                                                                            applicable rate existed,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di                Ð or that the domestic law of that Member State was
Stato (Council of State) by order of that court of                          only partially inapplicable' having regard to the
20 January 1998, in the case of Questore di Verona (Chief                   Community        Directive   73/80/EEC     and    in
            of Police of Verona) v. Diego Zenatti                           consequence the application of a rate of 1 %
                        (Case C-67/98)                                      should be allowed on the basis of the principle of
                                                                            downward direct effect where there is a clear and
                         (98/C 151/09)                                      precise provision which involves no other
                                                                            condition'?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
                                                                    2. If, by virtue of the application of Directive 73/80/EEC,
Stato of 20 January 1998, which was received at the
                                                                        a positive answer were to be given regarding the
Court Registry on 13 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                        second alternative set out above, but having regard to
ruling in the case of Questore di Verona v. Diego Zenatti
                                                                        the fact that Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
on the following questions:
                                                                        amended Article 7(2) of the latter as from its entry
                                                                        into force on 1 January 1986 by stating that Member
Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services                   States may either exempt from capital duty all
preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in               transactions . . . or charge duty on them at a single
view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to                rate not exceeding 1 %' and to the fact that, by that
prevent fraud that justify it?                                          date, a Member State had not yet transposed the latter
                                                                        directive into its internal law but, on the contrary,
                                                                        retained a rate far higher than the 1 % previously
                                                                        authorised:


title: Case T-551/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/62

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-551/15)
   (2015/C 389/70)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvăo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               (1)

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119, (1) in so far it excludes from European Union financing the sum of EUR 5 01  445,57 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic in connection with the flax and hemp measure for the marketing year 1999/2000;

               (2)

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, alleging the following defects:

               1.

               infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 729/70: (2) the Commission has failed to demonstrate any infringement of the rules governing the common organisation of agricultural markets;

               2.

               infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 729/70 on the ground that the conditions laid down by the Commission in the uniform guidelines set out in Document No VI/5330/97 (3) for the application of a flat-rate 25 % financial correction are not fulfilled;

               3.

               infringement of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005: (4) expenditure incurred more than 24 months previously — on the ground that, by excluding from Community financing expenditure incurred in 1999 and 2000, the contested decision refuses to fund expenditure incurred more than 24 months before the Commission gave the Portuguese authorities written notification of its inspection findings deriving from the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 April 2006. (5)

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(I), p. 218).

      (3)  Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 2007, Commission guidelines on the calculation of financial consequences when preparing decisions concerning the clearance of EAGGF, Guarantee Section, accounts.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (5)  Commission Decision of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 124, p. 21).


title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-314/95)

text:
25 . 11 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315 / 11
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                           provisions necessary to comply with Directives
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                        92/45/EEC ( ] ), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ), 92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/88/
                           ( Case C-3 13/95                                     EEC (4 ), 92/116/EEC ( 5 ), 92/117/EEC ( 6 ) and 92/118/
                                                                                EEC ( 7), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                              ( 95/C 315/20 )
                                                                                obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty .
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities , represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                      is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                                State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
                                                                          an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              directives for their transposition . In the case of Directives
                                                                          92/45/EEC, 92/46/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/116/EEC, 92/ 117/
1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   EEC and 92/ 118/EEC, the periods prescribed expired on
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                    1 January 1994 and, in the case of Directive 92/88/EEC, it
       provisions necessary to comply with Directives                     expired on 31 December 1993 ; in each case, the Italian
       92/66/EEC C ) and 92/119/EEC ( 2 ), the Italian Republic           Republic had failed to adopt the provision necessary to
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives        comply with the Directive in question by the required
                                                                          date .
       and the EC Treaty .
2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                         0)   OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (3)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (4)  OJ   No  L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992 , p . 24 .
                                                                          (s)  OJ   No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive             (6)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 38 .
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member              (7)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
directives for their transposition .
The prescribed periods expired on 1 October 1993 , at which
time the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions              Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
necessary for implementation of the Directives referred to in                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
the forms of order sought by the Commission .                                                          ( Case C-3 15 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 315/22 )
 (') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                           Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                            ( Case C-3 14/95 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 95/C 315/21 )
                                                                           1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                periods the laws, regulations and administrative
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                       provisions necessary to comply with Directives
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             93/48/EEC {'), 93/49/EEC ( 2 ), 93/52/EEC ( 3 ), 93/61 /
  3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                               EEC (4 ) and 93/85/EEC ( 5 ), the Italian Republic has
  Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives and
 Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        the EC Treaty .
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
        periods the laws, regulations and administrative                    is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member


title: Action brought on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola Sabbatucci against the European Parliament (Case T-42/98)

text:
C 137/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant points out that, as a result of interpreting in
                                                                        this way Article 17 of the electoral rules, List No 5 has
1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of                       come to have only Brussels-based representatives among
     12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences                 those elected from it, while the candidate who had
     for rice falling within CN code 1006 and originating               received the greatest number of individual votes was
     in the overseas countries and territories under the                excluded from those elected. The applicant claims that
     specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)                    such a final result is paradoxical and legally aberrant.
     No 2352/97 (1),                                                    Such a result conflicts directly with the basic rule which
                                                                        governs any kind of democratic ballot, namely that those
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.                   candidates who obtain the greatest number of votes win
                                                                        and are appointed according to the number of votes
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     obtained.
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to                    In support of her application the applicant claims that the
those in Case T-32/98 (2).                                              contested decisions should be annulled:
(1) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 17.
                                                                        Ð inasmuch as they infringe Articles 6, 17 and 18 of the
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                            electoral rules,
                                                                        Ð in the alternative, inasmuch as those rules are in
                                                                            breach of the provisions of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                            Regulations,
Action brought on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola
         Sabbatucci against the European Parliament                     Ð inasmuch as they are contrary to the principles
                         (Case T-42/98)                                     common to all the Member States in matters of
                                                                            electoral law, according to which the first successful
                          (98/C 137/44)                                     candidate from the list which has obtained the greatest
                                                                            number of votes must be elected.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                   The applicant states in particular that to read
before the Court of First Instance of the European                      Article 17(5)(b) in the way that the Committee of Tellers
Communities on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola                              has done runs counter to the system of proportional
Sabbatucci, represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea                 distribution of seats laid down in Article 17(1) and (2)
Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at              thereof. However, should the Court consider that the only
the Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67, avenue des                      possible interpretation of Article 17 of the electoral rules
Nerviens, Brussels.                                                     is that adopted in the contested decisions, the applicant
                                                                        also claims that that provision and Article 6(4) are
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             contrary to Annex II to the Staff Regulations. The absence
                                                                        in that Annex of any mention of the obligation to ensure
Ð annul the notice of 27 January 1998 of the Committee                  that the staff of a particular seat are represented where
     of Tellers and their reply of 17 February 1998                     there is only a single committee means, in the view of the
     inasmuch as they exclude the applicant from the                    applicant, that where such representation is guaranteed by
     candidates elected to the Staff Committee,                         the electoral rules, it should be established by way of
                                                                        criteria such as not to upset the choice expressed by the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs of these                         electorate with its vote.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official in Category B at the European
Parliament, challenges her exclusion from the Staff                     Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acerinox SA
Committee of the European Parliament. The applicant                          against Commission of the European Communities
observes that she submitted her candidature in List No 5                                       (Case T-48/98)
for the to the second-round elections held in January 1998
and obtained the greatest number of votes of those on the                                       (98/C 137/45)
list. According to the information provided by the
Committee of Tellers following the allocation of seats on                              (Language of the case: English)
the basis of the number of individual votes, one of the
conditions with regard to the composition of the                        An action against the Commission of the European
committee laid down in Article 17(5)(b) of the                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Parliament's electoral rules requiring the presence of a                Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1998
certain number of members assigned to Brussels had not                  by Acerinox SA, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele
been met. Thus the applicant was replaced by the Brussels               and Denis Waelbroeck with an address for service in
representative, who had not been elected, who had the                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
greatest number of votes in List No 5.                                  Matrhias Hardt.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 August 1998 in Case T-44/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Scheme of the association of the overseas countries and territories - Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC - Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 - Proceedings for interim measures - Intervention - Urgency - None)

text:
24.10.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/25
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                             OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                                of 14 August 1998
                                                                        in Case T-44/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Scheme of the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                   territories Ð Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC Ð
                                                                   Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 Ð Proceedings for interim
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      measures Ð Intervention Ð Urgency Ð None)
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (98/C 327/47)
                     of 14 August 1998
    in Case T-43/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
               Council of the European Union                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Scheme of the association of the overseas countries and
territories Ð Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC Ð
Proceedings for interim measures Ð Intervention Ð
                      Urgency Ð None)                              In Case T-44/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV,
                                                                   established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by Gerard
                         (98/C 327/46)                             van der Wal, Advocate with a right of audience before the
                                                                   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                   Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European Communities
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by the Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus
                                                                   Houttuin), the Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Rosario Silva
In Case T-43/98 R: Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV,                     de Lapuerta and Monica Lopez-Monis Gallego) and the
established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by Gerard           French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) Ð application,
van der Wal, Advocate with a right of audience before the          first, for suspension of the operation of Decision VI/51329
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service             of the Commission of 23 December 1997 rejecting a
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                    request by the applicant for the issue of import licences in
Grand-Rue, v Council of the European Union (Agents:                respect of sugar products and, second, for interim
Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin), supported by the                  measures prohibiting the Commission from applying
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                     Article 108b of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July
Thomas van Rijn), the Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Rosario            1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
Silva de Lapuerta and Monica Lopez-Monis Gallego) and              territories with the European Economic Community (OJ
the French Republic (Agent: Claude Chavance) Ð                     L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1), as amended, and/or Commission
application for partial suspension of the operation of             Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on
Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November 1997                     rules for issuing import licences for certain products
amending at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the                    covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and
association of the overseas countries and territories with         qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products Ð the
the European Economic Community (OJ L 329,                         President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
29.11.1997, p. 50) Ð the President of the Court of First           14 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Instance made an order on 14 August 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                   1. The Government of Aruba is granted leave to
                                                                        intervene in the present proceedings for interim
1. The Government of Aruba is granted leave to                          measures in support of the form of order sought by
    intervene in the present proceedings for interim relief             the applicant.
    in support of the form of order sought by the
    applicant.
                                                                   2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                   3. The costs are reserved.
3. The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-14/11: Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Strohm v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/37

         Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Strohm v Commission
   (Case F-14/11)
   2011/C 238/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Strohm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Schlenker, M. Heimburger, R. Bakker and U. Thanner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the defendant not to defray 100 % of medical expenses for dental treatment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               On annulment of the statement of 1.6.2010, List No 10003157; of 4.6.2010, List No 10003164 and of 25.11.2010, List No 10003383, and the approval decisions AZ: 100525302817 of 4.6.2010 and 100525302817 of 11.6.2010, order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 4 251,49 plus interest at the rate of 5 percentage points;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-58/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark APAX — Earlier international word mark APAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Apax Partners v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX)
   (Case T-58/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark APAX - Earlier international word mark APAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 030/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apax Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Rose, J. Warner and J. Curry, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. Moisescu, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Apax Partners Midmarket (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Moyou Joly, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 (Case R 1441/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Apax Partners Midmarket and Apax Partners.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders APAX Partners LLP to pay the costs, including those necessarily incurred by APAX Partners Midmarket, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-563/14: Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/19

         Action brought on 29 July 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (ELITEDISPLAY)
   (Case T-563/14)
   2014/C 351/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Dallas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1539/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ELITEDISPLAY’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 11 541 901

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-362/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v European Commission, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Appeal — State aid — Complaint — Decision to take no further action on the complaint — Withdrawal of the decision to take no further action — Conditions governing the lawfulness of withdrawal — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v European Commission, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon
   (Case C-362/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Withdrawal of the decision to take no further action - Conditions governing the lawfulness of withdrawal - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)
   2011/C 55/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (represented by: S. Pappas, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent), Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission by which the Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by the applicant following the Commission’s withdrawal of the contested decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic — Misinterpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-521/06 P Athinaïki Techniki — Conditions governing the lawfulness of the withdrawal of a Community administrative act — Failure to take administrative action in the context of the State aid investigation procedure not permissible — Principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against the Council of the European Union (Case T-219/97)

text:
C 318/26               EN ]                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
— in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the             Staff Regulations, which is a clear provision requiring no
     remission of those duties;                                         clarification .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                In adopting the contested decision, the appointing
                                                                        authority applied criteria for granting leave which remain
                                                                        shrouded in mystery, the legal justification of which has
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     not been explained . In so doing, it also infringed Article 25
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations .
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-2 16/97 (').
(') See page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens against
                                                                        the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-222/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/52 )
Action brought on 25 July 1997 by Anita Brems against
              the Council of the European Union                                         (Language of the case: German)
                         ( Case T-219/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/51 )                              An action against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Communities on 30 July 1997 by Alfons Steffens,
                                                                        of Aschendorf/Moor ( Federal Republic of Germany),
                                                                        represented by Burkhard Josef Remmers, Rechtsanwalt,
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 Papenburg ( Germany ), with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance on 25 July                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk & Prum, 13a
1997 by Anita Brems, resident in Relegem ( Belgium ),                   Avenue Guillaume .
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson                 The applicant claims that the Court should order the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                              defendants to pay to the applicant damages amounting to
                                                                        DM 69 503,40, together with 8 % interest from 1 October
                                                                        1993 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Council's decisions refusing to allow her the
     entire period from 24 May to 8 June 1996 as sick                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     leave,                                                             those in the other milk quota cases.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman against
                                                                                the European Parliament
The application challenges the legality of the refusal to                                       ( Case T-223/97)
allow as sick-leave the entire period of the applicant's
absence from 24 May to 8 June 1996 .                                                              ( 97/C 318/53 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
According to the applicant, in refusing her sick-leave
covering her entire absence, the appointing authority
breached the principles set out in Article 59 of the Staff              An action against the European Parliament was brought
Regulations as clarified in the case-law of the Court of                before the Court of First Instance of the European
Justice and the Court of First Instance .                               Communities on 30 July 1997 by R. Kooyman, a freelance
                                                                        interpreter, resident at Zurich ( Switzerland ), represented
                                                                        by G. Van der Wal, a Member of the Orde van Advocaten
The    conclusion     of    the   heads   of  administration   of       at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme
1 February 1996 concerning grant of the second half of                  Court), Barents & Krans Advocaten Notarissen, Brussels,
special leave for a thermal cure is illegal, inasmuch as it             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 59 of the            Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue .


title: Case C-358/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Bank of Industry and Mine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-10/13 Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/45

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by Bank of Industry and Mine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-10/13 Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

   (Case C-358/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bank of Industry and Mine (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-10/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by Bank of Industry and Mine in that case and ordered it to pay all of the costs;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on seven grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 99 of its judgment, that Decision 2012/635 (1) had been taken by the Council pursuant to Article 29 TEU and by drawing the conclusion, in paragraph 101, that that decision did not have to be subject to the requirements laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU. The General Court also erred in law by holding, in paragraph 105 of its judgment, that the Council was correct to provide for implementing powers pursuant to the provisions of Article 291(2) TFEU. In addition, the Council also erred in law by finding that the conditions laid down for relying on Article 291(1) TFEU had been satisfied. Article 215 TFEU, it submits, is the only procedure applicable to restrictive measures. Article 291(2) TFEU could not therefore be applied since that article is applicable only to measures necessitating implementing measures. Measures for the freezing of funds are, however, in essence, implementing measures. Such measures cannot therefore fall within the substantive scope of application of Article 291(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the conditions laid down for recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU are not satisfied because the Council did not, in the contested decisions, properly justify its reliance on that procedure.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant also claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), as amended by Decision 2012/35 (3), Decision 2012/635 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (4), did not contravene the principles of legal certainty and predictability, proportionality and the right to property. The criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance referred to in paragraph 79 of the General Court’s judgment is not mentioned in the contested acts. The General Court thus artificially created it in order to uphold the contested acts. In addition, that criterion is in itself vague, imprecise and disproportionate. The General Court therefore erred in law in finding that the fact that the appellant had transferred a contribution to the Iranian State constituted support within the meaning of the contested acts.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 135 and 136 of its judgment in holding that the contested acts were sufficiently reasoned, even though the General Court itself recognised in paragraph 134 of that judgment that the contested acts did not take account of the extent and the detailed arrangements of the support attributed to the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant was unable, on a reading of the contested acts, to understand the reasons for which it had been sanctioned, a fact which points to an inadequacy in the reasoning.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 163 of its judgment, that the failure to re-examine the position of the appellant within the prescribed period was not capable of rendering unlawful its maintenance on the list of sanctioned entities despite the fact that that obligation is one which is strictly objective.
   By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the contested decisions did not infringe the appellant’s fundamental rights and were not disproportionate despite the fact that those contested decisions were vague and imprecise. Similarly, the criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance laid down by the General Court was inherently arbitrary.
   By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 179 and 183 of its judgment in finding that the appellant was supporting the Iranian Government on the ground that it had transferred a mandatory contribution despite the fact that that contribution was merely a tax and that the appellant was in the same situation as any ordinary taxpayer.
   By its final ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to find that the Council had contravened the principle of non-discrimination by sanctioning the appellant for having transferred a contribution to the Iranian State, without sanctioning all of the undertakings which were subject to that contribution.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

      (3)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).