title: Case C-352/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, F.I.R.M.A. Srl, Laboratori Guidotti Spa, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia Spa, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico Spa, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, F.I.R.M.A. Srl, Laboratori Guidotti Spa, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia Spa, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico Spa, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA v Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   (Case C-352/07)
   (2007/C 247/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A. Menarini Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite Srl, F.I.R.M.A. Srl, Laboratori Guidotti Spa, Istituto Lusofarmaco d'Italia Spa, Malesi Istituto Farmacobiologico Spa, Menarini International Operations Luxembourg SA

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case T-462/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — HEG and Graphite India v Council (Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Countervailing duties — Imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Determination of injury — Causal link)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — HEG and Graphite India v Council
   (Case T-462/04) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Countervailing duties - Imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Determination of injury - Causal link)
   (2009/C 32/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: HEG Ltd (New Delhi, India); and Graphite India Ltd (Kolkata, India) (represented: initially by K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Branton)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 4) and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 10).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HEG Ltd and Graphite India Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.


title: Case T-66/10: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/42

         Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich v Commission
   (Case T-66/10) (1)

   (Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Partial annulment and declaration of nullity of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 156/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zuckerfabrik Jülich GmbH (formerly Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG) (Jülich, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: F. Diez Moreno and subsequently by: A. Rubio Gonzâlez, abogados del Estado), and Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by: R. Janeckaitè and R. Krasuckaitè, and subseqeuntly by: R. Krasuckaitè and R. Makevičienè, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those of Zuckerfabrik Jülich GmbH.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Lithuania shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2000 in Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
C 122/32                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(OJ 1997 L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                         of 22 February 2000
President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February             in Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto v Council of the
2000, in which it:                                                                                European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.                               (Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                   event of absence on account of sickness)
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/45)
3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
                                                                            In Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto, an official of
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J.-N. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                            SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: P. Borges and M. Bauer) — application for annulment
                                                                            of the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 refusing regis-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            tration of the applicant’s medical certificate and declaring her
                                                                            absence during the period from 9 to 22 February 1998
                        of 23 February 2000                                 inclusive to be irregular — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
in Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro v Commission of the                      P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for
                     European Communities (1)                               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2000, in
                                                                            which it:
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action                   1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 declaring
                            for damages)                                         the applicant’s absence during the period from 9 to 22 February
                                                                                1998 inclusive to be irregular;
                          (2000/C 122/44)
                                                                            2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
In Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, assigned to the Joint
Research Centre, Ispra, and residing at Ispra (Italy), represented
by G. Marchesini, advocate with a right of audience before the
Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an address for                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
(Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and, second, for                in Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez v Commission of
compensation for the non-material damage alleged — the                                       the European Communities (1)
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;              (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           merits — List of officials considered to be most deserving of
a judgment on 23 February 2000, in which it:                                promotion — List of officials promoted — Staff report —
                                                                                Absence of statement of reasons)
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2000/C 122/46)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            In Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing at Kraai-
                                                                            nem (Belgium), represented by M.A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 1999 in Case C-414/97: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Imports and acquisitions of armaments - Sixth VAT Directive - National legislation not complying therewith)

text:
C 366/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.12.1999
1. On a proper construction of Council Regulation (EEC)                     1. Declares that, by exempting from value added tax intra-
     No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a                     Community imports and acquisitions of arms, ammunition and
     supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products and,            equipment exclusively for military use, other than the aircraft and
     in particular, Article 3(b) thereof, where a product in the form            warships mentioned in points 23 and 25 of Annex F to Sixth
     referred to in the marketing authorisation is protected by a basic          Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     patent in force, the supplementary protection certificate is capable        harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     of covering the product, as a medicinal product, in any of the              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     forms enjoying the protection of the basic patent.                          basis of assessment, in the version resulting from Council
                                                                                Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing
2. In order to determine, in connection with the application of                  the common system of value added tax and amending Directive
     Regulation No 1768/92 and, in particular, Article 3(a) thereof,             77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers,
     whether a product is protected by a basic patent, reference must            notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 14, 28a, and
     be made to the rules which govern that patent.                              28c(B) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ No C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 16 September 1999                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-414/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                             of 16 September 1999
                     ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                                                                            in Case C-435/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Imports                  from the Verwaltungsgericht, Autonome Sektion für die
and acquisitions of armaments — Sixth VAT Directive —                       Provinz Bozen): World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Others
          National legislation not complying therewith)                               v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others (1)
                            (1999/C 366/06)                                 (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
                                                                                the effects of certain public and private projects)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   (1999/C 366/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: German)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-414/97: Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agents: Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and Carlos Gómez de la                                   in the European Court Reports)
Cruz) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Nuria Diaz Abad) —
application for a declaration that, by exempting from value                 In Case C-435/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
added tax intra-Community imports and acquisitions of arms,                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungs-
ammunition and equipment exclusively for military use, other                gericht, Autonome Sektion für die Provinz Bozen (Administrat-
than the aircraft and warships mentioned in points 23 and 25                ive Court, Autonomous Division for the Province of Bolzano),
of Annex F to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                  Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                  before that court between World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                   Others and Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others — on the
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                     interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 14, 28a and                1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
28c(B) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to                private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40)
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth               — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                     President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm
Chamber, G. Hirsch and J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), Judges;                    (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
judgment on 16 September 1999, in which it:                                 16 September 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-111/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-111/11)
   2012/C 6/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicants’ salary statements for February 2011 and the salary statements for the following months applying the new correction coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions establishing the applicants’ salary statements on the basis of the correction coefficient for the town of Varese set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010 applicable with effect from 1 July 2010;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2011 rejecting the applicants’ complaints concerning the correction coefficient applied to Varese;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-121/10: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Conte and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Introduction of a Community system of control, inspection and enforcement — Concept of regulatory act — Concept of legislative act — Not individually affected)

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Order of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Conte and Others v Council
   (Case T-121/10) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Fisheries - Conservation of fisheries resources - Introduction of a Community system of control, inspection and enforcement - Concept of regulatory act - Concept of legislative act - Not individually affected))
   (2015/C 178/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Giovanni Conte (Pomezia, Italy); Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl, Civitanova Marche (Italy); Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc (Termoli, Italy); Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl (Civitanova Marche); Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) (Manfredonia, Italy) (represented by: P. Cavascola, G. Micucci and V. Cannizzaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and S. Barbagallo, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1) and more particularly, Articles 9, 10, 14(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), 15, 17(1), 58(1), (2), (3) and (5), 59(2) and (3), 60(4) and (5), 62(1), 63(1), 64, 65, 66(1) and (3), 67(1), 68, 73(8), 92(2) and 103 of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Giovanni Conte; Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl, Civitanova Marche; Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc; Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl and Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-185/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc. (Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope of application — Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to issue an order restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before a court of another Member State on the ground that those proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement — New York Convention)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords (United Kingdom)) — Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc.
   (Case C-185/07) (1)

   (Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope of application - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to issue an order restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings before a court of another Member State on the ground that those proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement - New York Convention)
   (2009/C 82/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA

      Respondent: West Tankers Inc.
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of 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) — Power of a court of a Member State to order a party not to commence court proceedings or to cease those proceedings in another Member State on the ground that they are contrary to an arbitration agreement
   Operative part of the judgment
   It is incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-342/05: Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/10

         Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-342/05)
   (2005/C 281/19)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by regularly permitting the hunting of wolves contrary to the principles for derogations laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of the directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC is an exception to the system of the strict protection of species in Article 12, so that it must be interpreted strictly. Article 12(1) lays down two preconditions for derogating on the basis of points (a) to (e). First, the derogation must not be detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Second, a derogation is possible only where there is no other satisfactory solution.
   Since the level of protection of the wolf is not favourable in Finland and other alternative methods are available, and since permits for hunting wolves are regularly issued without there being a properly ascertained connection with individuals causing particularly significant damage, the hunting of wolves is permitted in Finland to an extent which exceeds the conditions laid down in Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

      (1)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.


title: Case C-7/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 7 January 2013 — Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige v Skatteverket

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 7 January 2013 — Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige v Skatteverket
   (Case C-7/13)
   2013/C 55/12
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do supplies of externally purchased services from a company’s main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State, with an allocation of costs for the purchase to the branch, constitute taxable transactions if the branch belongs to a VAT group in the Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the main establishment in the third country to be viewed as a taxable person not established in the Member State within the meaning of Article 196 of the Directive, (1) with the result that the purchaser is to be taxed for the transactions?

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


title: Case T-340/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA (Action for annulment — Lifelong learning programme — Contract concerning the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’  — Pre-information letter — Contractual nature of dispute — Act not subject to appeal — No reclassification of contract)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA
   (Case T-340/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Lifelong learning programme - Contract concerning the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’ - Pre-information letter - Contractual nature of dispute - Act not subject to appeal - No reclassification of contract))
   2014/C 421/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Española de Hostelería (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Miguelsanz Roldán, F.J. del Nogal Méndez, R. Fernández Flores and M.P. Abad Marco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, Agents, assisted initially by J.L. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García and A. Balcells Cartagena, then, J.L. Buendía Sierra and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the EACEA’s pre-information letter of 5 April 2013 informing the applicant that it had to reimburse EUR 1 81  686,11 following the audit of the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Federación Española de Hostelería to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 1999 in Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health v Council of the European Union (Proceedings for interim relief - Suspension of operation of Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 - Withdrawal of virginiamycin from the list of authorised additives - Directive 70/524/EEC - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

text:
C 299/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             (Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
                           INSTANCE                                      gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established at
                                                                         Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
                         of 21 July 1999                                 mbH, established at Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established at Hohenberg (Austria), and
                                                                         Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established at Sondershau-
in Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH v Com-                        sen (Germany), represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich
           mission of the European Communities                           Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten, with an address for service
                                                                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,
(Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee —                      v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Eric
Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of              Gippini Fournier and Walter Mölls) — application for suspen-
               a measure — Urgency — None)                               sion of operation or a stay of enforcement of Articles 3(d) and
                                                                         4 of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
                        (1999/C 299/32)                                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (Case No IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999
                                                                         L 24, p. 1), as rectified by a decision of 6 November 1998,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        inasmuch as those measures impose on the applicants a fine
                                                                         payable within three months of notification of that decision
                                                                         — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
In Case T-191/98 R: DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in
                                                                         on 9 July 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Bremen (Germany), represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of the
Brussels Bar, Ute Zinsmeister, Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf,
and John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt,                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by                 2. The costs are reserved.
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Wolf-Dieter Plessing
and Claus-Dieter Quassowski), v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for suspen-
sion of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC
of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134
— Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95,
p. 1), in so far as, in Articles 8 and 10, it imposes a fine of
EUR 13 750 000 on the applicant — the President of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 July 1999, the                                          INSTANCE
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 30 June 1999
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.                                               in Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health v Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of virginiamy-
                                                                         cin from the list of authorised additives — Directive
                                                                               70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (1999/C 299/34)
                          of 9 July 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik
Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities                           In Case T-13/99 R: Pfizer Animal Health SA/NV, established in
                                                                         Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by Ian S. Forrester
(Competition — Payment of fine — Proceedings for interim                 QC, Elisabethann Wright, Barrister, and Mark Powell, Solicitor,
measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Stay                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of enforcement)                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, supported by Asociación Nacional
                                                                         de Productores de Ganado Porcino and Asociación Española
                                                                         de Criadores de Vacuno de Carne, established in Madrid and
                        (1999/C 299/33)                                  Barcelona (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and
                                                                         Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, of the Madrid Bar, and by
                                                                         José Massaguer Fuentes and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
In Case T-9/99 R: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-              Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established at Rosenheim                 Fédération Européenne des Fabricants d’Adjuvants pour la
 ---pagebreak--- 16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/25
Nutrition Animale (Fefana), established in Brussels, represented         Article 185 of the EC Treaty (now Article 242 EC) of enforce-
by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, of the Brussels Bar,             ment of Article 2(a) of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and Hedwig Kerckhove              necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encepha-
and Paul Lambert, residing in Wingene (Belgium), represented             lopathy (BSE) in Portugal (OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23) inasmuch as
by Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, and Nina Köhncke,             it prohibits the despatch from Portugal to Spain and France of
Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in               fighting bulls intended for cultural and sporting events held in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,                  those Member States, and, second, for the grant of authoris-
v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery and                ation pursuant to Article 186 of the EC Treaty (now
Moyra Sims), supported by Commission of the European                     Article 243 EC), subject to certain conditions, for the despatch
Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou                of those animals from Portugal to Spain and France — the
and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:              President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Jørgen Molde), Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Anders Kruse) and               9 August 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Republic of Finland (Agents: Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä)
— application for suspension of the operation of Council                 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998 amending,
as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of certain anti-              2. The costs are reserved.
biotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
stuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or for other interim measures —
the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
30 June 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Electronics
                                                                         Manufacturing España S.A (DEMESA) against the Com-
2. The costs are reserved.                                                           mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-148/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                           INSTANCE                                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Elec-
                        of 9 August 1999                                 tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA), established in
                                                                         Alava (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                         Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service
in Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola
dos Arinhos Lda and Others v Commission of the                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision of 24 February 1999
    (Procedure for interim measures — Urgency — None)                         concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
                                                                              tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA);
                         (1999/C 299/35)                                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
In Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              advanced in Case T-127/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos              Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Alava v Com-
Arinhos Lda, established in Lisbon, Sociedade Agrı́cola do               mission of the European Communities and in Case T-129/99
Monte da Aldeia Lda, established in Lisbon, António José da             Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizco Industria
Veiga Teixeira, residing at Coruche (Portugal), Sociedade                Lurra v Commission.
Agrı́cola Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA established at
Almeirim (Portugal), Sociedade Agrı́cola de Perescuma SA,                The applicant pleads, in particular:
established al Almeirim, José de Barahona Núncio, residing at
Evora (Portugal), and Francisco Luı́s Pinheiro Caldeira, residing        — infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant
at Campo Maior (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho                      undertaking as the recipient of the alleged State aid in
Moniz and Júlia Rôla Roque, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address               issue, on account of the defendant’s failure to notify the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                   applicant of any of the steps taken in the administrative
Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European Communities                           procedure or to seek the applicant’s views concerning
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, Gérard Berscheid and Vasco                   matters of great importance, whereas the contested
Airão) — application, first, for suspension pursuant to                      decision was indeed notified to it; and


title: Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Windstar Sail Cruises Limited, Wind Star Limited and Wind Spirit Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-209/95)

text:
No C 351 /20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 12 . 95
originating in Indonesia , the Republic of Korea , Taiwan and             Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Windstar Sail
Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty .               Cruises Limited, Wind Star Limited and Wind Spirit Limited
MSG produced and exported to the Community by                               against the Commission of the European Communities
companies which offered undertakings which had been                                                ( Case T-209/95 )
accepted by the Commission was exempted from definitive
duties and the applicant was among the companies                                                     ( 95/C 351 /38 )
exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duty . Following
a request for a review under Article 14 of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 lodged by Orsan , the sole                                   (Language of the case: English)
Community producer of MSG , the Commission on 9 July
1994 published notice 94/C 187/06 concerning the
initiation of a review of all the anti-dumping measures                   An action against the Commission of the European
applicable to imports of MSG originating in Indonesia , the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
Republic of Korea , Taiwan and Thailand . On 8 June 1995                  Instance of the European Communities on 3 November
the Commission sent a disclosure letter to the applicant                  1995 by Windstar Sail Cruises Limited, Wind Star Limited
announcing its intention to withdraw its price undertakings               and Wind Spirit Limited, represented by Alfred Merckx, of
and to replace it by a provisional anti-dumping duty based                the Brussels Bar ( Sinclair Roche & Temperley ), Broadwalk
on the facts established before the acceptance of the price               House, 5 Appold Street, London ..
undertaking. The Commission considered that ' even if the
export prices , taken at their face value, did correspond to the
terms of the undertakings, the level of the resale prices of the
merchandise in the Community nevertheless constitute a                    The applicants claim that the Court should :
clear indication of the violation of the undertakings'. On
18 July the Commission adopted Regulation ( EC )                          — annul pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty
No 1754/95 , the act contested in the present application .                    the Commission decision of 21 June 1995 in so far as it
                                                                               considers the aid granted by the French government
                                                                               for the building of the 'Tahiti Nui ' as development aid
The applicant asserts that the contested Regulation is                         under Article 4 ( 7 ) of the shipbuilding Directive and
manifestly unlawful in that it is based on invalid grounds . It                compatible with the common market,
explains that the Commission based its decision on
Article 10 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 ,
that is , on the finding that the applicant was in breach of its          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
undertaking . The applicant maintains that this finding is
manifestly unlawful :
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
( 1 ) to the extent that it is based on facts which do not
       individually concern the applicant;                                The applicants who operate cruises between various EC
                                                                          ports in the Mediterranean and between ports of call in the
                                                                          Caribbean and French Polynesia are challenging the
                                                                          Commission 's decision not to raise objections to State aid
( 2 ) in that it rests on a fundamental error of law, namely              granted to their French competitor ' Services et Transports'
       the notion that a finding of a breach of a price                   for the building, by the French shipbuilding yard Ateliers et
       undertaking can be based on an analysis of the resale              Chantiers du Flavre, of a ship to be named 'Tahiti Nui '
       prices of the product concerned by independent                     which would go into operation in French Polynesia from
       importers in the Community;                                         1996 . The Commission has considered this aid to be
                                                                          development aid as within the meaning of Article 4 ( 7 ) of the
                                                                          shipbuilding Directive and therefore to be compatible with
 ( 3 ) in that it is based on a secret file of which no details have       Community law.
       been disclosed to the applicant, thus depriving it of its
       fundamental right to be heard; and
                                                                          In support of their application the applicants state as
                                                                           follows :
 ( 4 ) in that it is unjustified for the Commission to consider
       that the importer in Germany referred to in point 6 of             — the decision infringes Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in so
       the contested Regulation was related to the applicant                    far as the Commission can only take a decision to raise
       during the investigation period and that, in any event,                  no objections without initiating the procedure under
       this question is unrelated to the question of whether the                Article 93 ( 2 ) when it is prima facie manifestly apparent
       applicant was in breach of its undertaking.                              that the aid is compatible with Community law .
                                                                                However, in the present case whilst the defendant
                                                                                institution had initially expressed serious doubts about
                                                                                opening the Article 93 ( 2 ) procedure, it had de facto
                                                                                taken this aid out of the scope of this procedure and
                                                                                examined it under the simplified verification procedure
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95            LN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 351 /21
    under Article 93 ( 3 ). In any case, the assessment as to              ( b ) annul the decision of the selection board of
    whether or not shipbuilding aid can be exempted as                           15 November 1994 refusing to admit her to
    development aid under Article 4 ( 7 ) of the shipbuilding                    competition COM/T/A/95 ;
    Directive     involves     difficult factual    issues   which
    necessitate the       initiation of the      Article   93    (2)
                                                                       — in the a ternative :
    procedure,
                                                                           ( a ) declare that the decisions by which the Commission
— the Commission has failed to establish that the contested                      adopted its general policy regarding temporary staff
    aid was necessary in order for the shipping line to                          in March 1992 and February 1 994 are in breach of
    contribute to the development of the developing                              the principles referred to in the applicant's pleas,
    country . It is clear that the contrary is the case in that the              and declare them inapplicable to the applicant;
    real owners of the 'Tahiti Nui ' are French companies
    who want to take advantage of generous tax advantages                  ( b ) annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July
    and do not need development aid in order to contribute                       19 95 refusing to admit her to any supplemental
    to the development of the French overseas departments                        competition leading to establishment other than
    and territories but can afford to buy vessels at normal                      competition COM/T/A/95 ,
    market rates,
                                                                       — in the further alternative, order the Commission to pay
— the Commission has failed to analyse the impact of the                   her damages on account of the erroneous and prejudicial
    contested aid on competition in the cruise travel market               nature of the contested decisions; the applicant reserves
    in the Community and between Community shipyards .                     the right to submit later on in the proceedings detailed
    As a question of fact, this aid has had a significant                  calculations of the loss suffered by her,
    adverse impact on the applicants ' operations,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
— the decision has infringed the applicants' rights of
    defence and has failed to take              account of the
    Commission 's duties of impartiality, diligence, care and          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    good administration .
                                                                       The applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff in
                                                                       category A and currently a member, in the same category, of
                                                                       the auxiliary staff of the Commission , contests the decision
                                                                       of the selection board in internal competition COM/T/A/95
                                                                       refusing to admit her to the tests in that competition on the
                                                                       ground that she was not a member of the temporary staff on
                                                                       the final date for submission of applications, as required by
                                                                       the notice of competition .
Action brought on 10 November 1995 by Claudine
Petit-Laurent against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The applicant relies, in support of her claims , on the same
                                                                       pleas and arguments as those invoked in Case T-207/95 .
                          Case T-211 /95 )
                           ( 95/C 351 /39 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             Removal from the register of Case T-526/93 ( )
Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /40 )
1995 by Claudine Petit-Laurent, residing in Brussels
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                           (Language of the case: Lnglish)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           By order of 10 November 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— principally :                                                        from the register of Case T-526/93 : Matthew Fogarty,
                                                                       James Eager, Denis O'Halloran , John Joseph Dillon ,
     ( a ) declare notice of competition COM/T/A/95 illegal            John Joe Lynch, Mary and Martin McMahon , Joseph
           and inapplicable to the applicant;                          Fitzsimmons and Howard McCollum v. Council of the


title: Case C-625/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/27

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office
   (Case C-625/15 P)
   (2016/C 027/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgement of the General Court of 10 September 2015 in joined cases T-91/14 and T-92/14;

               —

               order the CPVO and the Interveners to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court committed a legal error in the application of Article 7 of Regulation No. 2100/94 (1) on Community Plant Variety Rights (hereinafter: CPVR) as well as of Articles 22 and 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1239/95 (2) of 31 May 1995.
   The General Court wrongly assessed the competence of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the inclusion of additional characteristics in the examination process of a variety to be granted Community plant variety protection.
   The General Court wrongly assessed the legal nature of technical protocols and guidelines to be applied in the technical examination of an applied for Community plant variety right, resulting in a wrong assessment of the time frame in which the President of the Community Plant Variety Office may decide that a new characteristic for determination of distinctness of the new variety may be taken into account.
   The General Court erred in assessing the consequence of the application of the principles of legal certainty, the objectivity of the Community Plant Variety Office and equal treatment in relation to the decisions of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the examination of a new variety.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights

      OJ L 227, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office

      OJ L 121, p. 37.


title: Case C-371/00 P: Appeal brought on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft

text:
25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/39
Commerce (Commercial Court), Foix, of 25 September 2000,                          Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 September                          approximation of the laws of the Member States with
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Réunion des                         regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (1) and
Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup, on the following                            Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December 1996
question:                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                                96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
In the light of:                                                                  Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous
—     the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European                          goods by rail (2) or in any event by failing to inform the
      Communities in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement                            Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Wallonie v Région Wallonne [1997] ECR I-7411, which                         its obligations under those Directives.
      states that:
                                                                            —     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      ‘the Member States ... [must] refrain, during the period
      laid down [in a directive] for its implementation, from
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the
      result prescribed’; and
                                                                            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
—     the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
      Communities in Case C-239/98 Commission v France                      upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
      [1999] ECR I-8935 declaring that the French State has                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
      failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose Directives              laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
      92/49 and 92/96 into domestic law,                                    1997 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                            ary to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions
      can Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                            of the Commission.
      direct insurance other than life assurance (1) and Directive
      92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 [relating to direct life
      assurance] (2) be interpreted as prohibiting any enforce-             (1) OJ L 235, 17.09.1996, p. 25-30 .
      ment (or any procedure) of any kind whatsoever, in                    (2) OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 45.
      particular by means of court-supervised receivership
      or liquidation proceedings before the Tribunaux de
      Commerce, of judicial decisions taken pursuant to legis-
      lation on direct insurance other than life assurance [or on
      direct life assurance] which is incompatible with those
      directives?                                                           Appeal brought on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc
                                                                            against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the Second
(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 (1)
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives      between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)          European Communities, supported by the Federal Repub-
    (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the                  lic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktienge-
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                      sellschaft
    relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
    79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ                                  (Case C-371/00 P)
    1992 L 360, p. 1).
                                                                                (2000/C 335/70)
                                                                            An appeal against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Action brought on 4 October 2000 by the Commission                          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98
        of the European Communities against Ireland                         between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany,
                          (Case C-370/00)                                   the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (2000/C 335/69)
                                                                            ties on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc, a public limited
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                   company incorporated in England with its registerd office at
Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2000 by                    Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey,
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                     Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an                Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a            at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10, Rue Mathias
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                       Hardt.
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                            The Appellant seeks an order that:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1)    the Appeal be allowed;
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    2)    the Order be set aside;
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
3)    Commission Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on                   4)    the Court of First Instance should not have rejected the
      German aid to the coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998                          pleas under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure.
      L 234, p. 30) be annulled, or, alternatively, the case be
      remitted back to the CFI;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
4)    the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and those
      incurred before the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
Without progressing to an oral hearing, the Court of First                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Instance, in its order of 25 July 2000, held, pursuant to                                                     lic
Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, that RJB Mining’s
application was lacking in any foundation in law in so far as it                                      (Case C-374/00)
was based on pleas that were not rejected in the interlocutory
judgment dated 9 September 1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/71)
The Court of First Instance ruled that:                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
a)    the plea relating to the erroneous test of mere reduction            11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Com-
      in production costs was a new plea, was raised for the               munities, represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
      first time on 1 March 2000 and was therefore manifestly              Adviser in its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a
      inadmissible by reason of the operation of Article 48(2)             national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with
      of the Rules of Procedure; and                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                           Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
b)    the plea of lack of reasons was manifestly unfounded
      because it merely repeated the arguments put forward in
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      support of the substantive pleas rejected as inadmissible.
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
The Appellant contends that:                                                     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply fully with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of
1)    the Appellant did not raise a new plea on 1 March 2000.                    3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      This is because:                                                           assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                projects on the environment, the Hellenic Republic has
      a)     the Court of First Instance misconstrued Article 48                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
             of the Rules of Procedure — the argument relating
             to mere reduction of production costs was not a               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
             ‘plea’ within that Article;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      b)     alternatively, the Court of First Instance wrongly
             held that the plea of mere reduction of production
             costs was not already a separate plea from that               The Member States are required by the binding character of
             relating to viability; and                                    the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                           paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
                                                                           adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
      c)     in the further alternative, if the Appellant is wrong         law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
             in relation to (a) and (b), the plea of mere reduction        and to communicate those measures immediately to the
             of production costs was so closely connected with             Commission. The Commission states that up until now the
             the viability plea that it should be regarded as              Hellenic Republic has not adopted the appropriate measures
             amplification of that plea and the Appellant should           for fully incorporating the directive at issue into national law,
             be entitled to raise it;                                      nor indeed has it communicated such measures to the
                                                                           Commission.
2)    the Court of First Instance should, in any event, have
      raised the plea of its own motion;
                                                                           (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
3)    the Court of First instance erred in rejecting the plea of
      breach of the duty to state reasons;


title: Case C-306/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2012 — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur S.A.

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2012 — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur S.A.
   (Case C-306/12)
   2012/C 287/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Saarbrücken

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Spedition Welter GmbH

      Defendant: Avanssur S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, (1) and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11-31;‘Directive 2009/103/EC’) to be interpreted to the effect that the powers of the claims representative include the authority to accept service for the insurance undertaking, with the result that, in an action for compensation for accidental damage brought by an injured party against the insurance undertaking, service by the court on the claims representative appointed by the insurance undertaking is effective against the insurance undertaking?
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC have direct effect in such a way that the injured party may rely on it before the national court, with the result that the national court must consider service on the insurance undertaking to be effective where service has been effected on the claims representative as the insurance undertaking’s ‘representative’, even though authority to accept service has not been granted by formal act and national law does not establish a statutory authority to accept service for such a case, but the service otherwise satisfies all the conditions laid down by national law?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-537/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Oikeus in Katja Candolin and Others. v Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola and Others (Compulsory motor vehicle insurance — Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Rules on civil liability — Passenger's contribution to the loss or injury — Refusal or limitation of the right to compensation)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-537/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Oikeus in Katja Candolin and Others. v Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola and Others (1)

   (Compulsory motor vehicle insurance - Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Rules on civil liability - Passenger's contribution to the loss or injury - Refusal or limitation of the right to compensation)
   (2005/C 205/05)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-537/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein Oikeus (Finland), made by decision of 19 December 2003, received at the Court on 22 December 2003, in the proceedings between Katja Candolin, Jari-Antero Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen against Vahinkovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, Jarno Ruokoranta, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it ruled:
   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, preclude a national rule which allows the compensation borne by the compulsory motor vehicle insurance to be refused or limited in a disproportionate manner on the basis of the passenger's contribution to the injury or loss he has suffered. The fact that the passenger concerned is the owner of the vehicle the driver of which caused the accident is irrelevant.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004


title: Case C-222/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

text:
1.9.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/3
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             1.   Is the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement
                                                                             concluded between a Member State and a non-member
1.    set aside the contested judgment in so far as the Court                country, under which a simpe/qualified geographical
      of First Instance dismissed the plea in law, that the                  indication which in the country of origin is the name
      Commission wrongly failed to take into account the                     neither of a region nor a place nor a country is accorded
      quantity judicially determined by the Finanzgericht Ham-               the absolute protection, regardless of any misleading, of
      burg in calculating the reference quantity for the years               a qualified geographical indication within the meaning of
      1997 to 1999 (paragraph 88); and                                       Regulation No 2081/92 (1), compatible with Article 28 EC
                                                                             and/or Regulation No 2081/92, if on application of that
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs                                  provision the import of a product which is lawfully
                                                                             put on the market in another Member State may be
                                                                             prevented?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.   Does this apply also where the geographical indication
                                                                             which in the country of origin is the name neither of a
The Court of First Instance fails to take proper account of the              region nor a place nor a country is not understood in the
scope of Article 5(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2362/98 (1). In               country of origin as a geographical designation for a
accordance with that provision, any customs duty paid in                     specific product, and also not as a simple or indirect
respect of the quantity imported constitutes sufficient evidence             geographical indication?
of the reference quantity to which the operator is entitled. The
relevant duty is that which was due from the importer on the            3.   Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 apply also where
day of importation. The duty applicable to the appellant on                  the bilateral agreement is an agreement which the
the day of importation was the quota duty, which the Court of                Member State concluded before its accession to the
First Instance fails to take into account. The Finanzgericht                 European Union and continued after its accession to the
Hamburg had made an interim order to the effect that the                     European Union with a successor State to the original
customs must accept the importation of the ‘quantity judicially              other State party to the agreement by means of a
determined’ without a certificate, provided the quota duty was               declaration of the Federal Government?
paid. The competent Hauptzollamt had decided that the duty
due from the appellant was the quota duty. The appellant                4.   Does the second paragraph of Article 307 EC oblige the
actually paid it. In relation to the question of actual payment              Member State to interpret such a bilateral agreement,
of the customs duty by the appellant in its capacity as importer,            concluded between that Member State and a non-member
the fact that the appeal court annulled the interim order of the             country before the Member State’s accession to the
Finanzgericht Hamburg, and that the Hauptzollamt sub-                        EU, in conformity with Community law as stated in
sequently amended the duty notice and determined the normal                  Article 28 EC and/or Regulation No 2081/92, so that
duty, is irrelevant. In relation to the quantity judicially                  the protection laid down therein for a simple/indirect
determined, it is obvious from the wording of Article 5(3)(b)                geographical indication which in the country of origin is
that the duty determined by the customs authorities on the                   the name neither of a region nor a place nor a country
day of importation and paid for the quantity imported                        comprises merely protection against misleading and
constitutes sufficient evidence of the reference quantity to                 not the absolute protection of a qualified geographical
which the appellant was entitled.                                            indication within the meaning of Regulation
                                                                             No 2081/92?
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handels-                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
gericht Wien by order of that court of 26 February                      hof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British
2001 in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v Rudolf                   American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt
                       Ammersin GmbH                                                                 Krefeld
                         (Case C-216/01)                                                        (Case C-222/01)
                         (2001/C 245/05)                                                        (2001/C 245/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht                  European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 26 February 2001, which              (Federal Finance Court) of 24 April 2001, received at the Court
was received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2001, for a                Registry on 5 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v            case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v
Rudolf Ammersin GmbH on the following questions:                        Hauptzollamt Krefeld on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
1.    Are goods which have been cleared for Community                          2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      transit removed from customs supervision if the transit                  States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
      document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-                     ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
      ment?                                                                    particular Article 15 thereof; or
2.    If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:                   —     Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed                    the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
      from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to                  the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
      ensure their identification was opened and the goods                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
      were partially unloaded, without the consignment first                   ‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof
      being duly produced for customs, even though the
      operation was arranged with the persons in question by             preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
      customs investigation officers operating incognito and             are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
      observed in every detail by those officers?                        has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
                                                                         displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
3.    If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the               gible manner?
      affirmative:
      Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
      Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs               (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
      investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
      infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
      the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
      used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
      by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
      repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
      from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
      munity transit?                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                         di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.                                                                    Dario Lo Bue
                                                                                (Case C-233/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/08)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of                    (District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by                    Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                         Susanne Müller                                  the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
                                                                         Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:
                         (Case C-229/01)                                 (1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
                         (2001/C 245/07)                                       Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
                                                                               cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
                                                                               curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         party liability in connection with the use of motor
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                      vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-                      vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June                    goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a                    insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller                  consumer price index?
on the following questions:
                                                                         (2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Does                                                                           Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
                                                                               Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
—     Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)                      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                    inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
      relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of               rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
      foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version              coefficients for determining the premium and differential
      prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of                 premium rate systems under which the premium payable
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March                   depends on the claims record?