title: Case C-187/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda

text:
17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;


title: Case C-182/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Aleksei Petruhhin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Extradition to a third State of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Scope of EU law — Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition — No protection for nationals of the other Member States — Restriction of freedom of movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — proceedings relating to the extradition of Aleksei Petruhhin
   (Case C-182/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Extradition to a third State of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement - Scope of EU law - Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition - No protection for nationals of the other Member States - Restriction of freedom of movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality - Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
   (2016/C 402/10)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Aleksei Petruhhin

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State to which a Union citizen, a national of another Member State, has moved receives an extradition request from a third State with which the first Member State has concluded an extradition agreement, it must inform the Member State of which the citizen in question is a national and, should that Member State so request, surrender that citizen to it, in accordance with the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, provided that that Member State has jurisdiction, pursuant to its national law, to prosecute that person for offences committed outside its national territory.

               2.

               Where a Member State receives a request from a third State seeking the extradition of a national of another Member State, that first Member State must verify that the extradition will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-33/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Finland) lodged on 21 January 2011 — A Oy

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court (Finland) lodged on 21 January 2011 — A Oy
   (Case C-33/11)
   2011/C 89/21
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Supreme Administrative Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Oy

      Defendant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 15(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept ‘airline operating for reward chiefly on international routes’ also refers to a commercial airline operating for reward chiefly on international charter routes for the requirements of companies and private persons?

               2.

               Is Article 15(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption provided therein only applies to that supply of aircraft which takes place directly to airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes, or does this exemption also apply to the supply of aircraft to a operator which does not itself operate for reward chiefly on international routes, but which in turn supplies the aircraft for the use of such an operator?

               3.

               Having regard to the reply given to the second question above, is it of significance that the owner of the aircraft in turn makes a charge for the use of the aircraft to a private person who is its shareholder, who uses the procured aircraft for his own business and/or private use, taking into account the fact that the airline has also been able to use the aircraft for other flights?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-118/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — LDC Argentina v Council (Dumping — Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Normal value — Production costs)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — LDC Argentina v Council
   (Case T-118/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Normal value - Production costs))
   (2016/C 402/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LDC Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff and G. Bathory, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Boelaert and B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents) and European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFUE for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia, in so far as they concern LDC Argentina SA;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by LDC Argentina;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-11/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Frucona Košice v Commission (State aid — Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Test of a private creditor in a market economy)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-11/07) (1)

   (State aid - Partial remission of a tax debt in the context of an arrangement - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Test of a private creditor in a market economy)
   2011/C 30/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, and O.H. Geiss and A. Barger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: St. Nicolaus-trade a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by N. Smaho, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Frucona Košice a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case F-157/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 June 2014  — BN v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Application for annulment — Official of Grade AD 14 temporarily filling a post as adviser to a Director — Claim of psychological harassment made against the Director General — Long-term sick leave — Decision to appoint the applicant to a post as adviser in another Directorate General — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Principle of sound administration — Interest of the service — Rule that the grade must correspond with the post — Application for damages — Harm resulting from a failure to take a decision)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 June 2014 — BN v Parliament
   (Case F-157/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Application for annulment - Official of Grade AD 14 temporarily filling a post as adviser to a Director - Claim of psychological harassment made against the Director General - Long-term sick leave - Decision to appoint the applicant to a post as adviser in another Directorate General - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Principle of sound administration - Interest of the service - Rule that the grade must correspond with the post - Application for damages - Harm resulting from a failure to take a decision))
   2014/C 421/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BN (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision reassigning the applicant and of the implied decision ending, with retroactive effect, his duties as adviser to the Director of a Directorate of the European Parliament and an application for compensation for the harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by BN.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 09/03/2013, p. 31.


title: Case T-214/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Typke v Commission
   (Case T-214/13)
   2013/C 171/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Typke (Hasbergen, Germany) (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 February 2013 denying applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — in the procedure GESTDEM 2012/3258;

               —

               Annul the implied negative decision of the European Commission of 13 March 2013 on applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the procedure GESTDEM 2013/0068;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as of other provisions of the said regulation, as:

               —

               The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s request would not fall within the realm of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, implying the creation of new documents instead of the access to existing ones, is unfounded;

               —

               The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be disproportionate, therefore inadmissible, even if considering the possibility of granting partial access, is unfounded;

               —

               The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need not to disclose third parties’ personal data is unfounded; and

               —

               The Commission’s assumption that the applicant’s requests would be barred by the need to preserve the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Selection Board, and by the need to protect the latter’s decision making process, is unfounded.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Case C-62/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 109/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
—     in refusing to grant the Appellant the same reduction of        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission
      fine as that granted to other participants because the          of the European Communities against the United
      Appellant denied its participation in an infringement,                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      the Court of First Instance has violated fundamental
      principles of law (right of defence) recognised by the
      Court of Justice in its case-law.                                                        (Case C-62/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/52)
(1) OJ C 137, 02.05.98, p. 20.
                                                                      An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission                  Luxembourg.
   of European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                      The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-58/02)
                                                                      —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 109/51)                                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                            availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Febru-               passenger cars (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Michael Shotter,                 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              its obligations under Article 12(1) and 12(2) of this
the office of Luis Escobar, Wagner Centre, C 254.                           Directive;
                                                                      —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection
      of services based on, or consisting of, conditional             Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
      access (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its       the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
      obligations under that directive;                               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
                                                                      period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                      expired on 18 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
                                                                      comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
                                                                      Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
                                                                      enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put          the necessary provision, it is compelled to assume that the
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition         United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
expired on 28 May 2000.                                               Directive.
(1) OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54.
(2) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002, p. 4.                                         (1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.


title: Case C-16/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2013 — Jürgen Langenbächer and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 14 January 2013 — Jürgen Langenbächer and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-16/13)
   2013/C 108/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jürgen Langenbächer, Janet Langenbächer, Jaqueline Langenbächer

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   The case was removed from the register by order of the Court of Justice of 30 January 2013.


title: Case C-192/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
C 200/50               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for              European Communities in case T-193/99 between Wm.
Salzburg) of 25 April 2001 which was received at the Court               Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought before
case of Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno on the following                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
questions:                                                               2001 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                         (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Virginia Melgar and
1.     Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC            Susanna Laitinen, acting as Agents.
      of 27 July 1976 (1) on the approximation of the laws of
      the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
      amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 Decem-               The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      ber 1988 (2) and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June
      1993 (3), in particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with        —     annul the judgment;
      Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (4)
      relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations             —     order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings
      and administrative provisions of the Member States                       before the Court of First Instance and before this Court.
      concerning misleading advertising, in particular Articles 4
      and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation which pro-
      hibits, in connection with the marketing of cosmetic
      products, references to medical opinions, by the use, in           Pleas in law and main arguments
      particular, of the description ‘ophthalmologically tested’?
2.    Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC             The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
      of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the            Marks and Designs) submits that:
      Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
      by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988                —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting
      and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, in                      Article 7(1)(c) CTMR to require that a term must be
      particular Article 6(3) thereof, and Council Directive                   ‘exclusively descriptive’ if it is to be excluded from
      84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on the approxi-                          registration as a Community trade mark under that
      mation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-                  provision and in holding that the term ‘Doublemint’ is
      visions of the Member States concerning misleading                       thus not excluded from registration.
      advertising, in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude
      national legislation which permits the use of references
                                                                         —     The reasoning used to support the reversal of the refusal
      falling within the terms of Question 1 only after prior
                                                                               of the term ‘Doublemint’ is contradictory, founded on an
      authorisation by the competent Federal Minister?
                                                                               artificial analysis, and fails to regard commercial reality
                                                                               and the context in which the mark is to be used, which
                                                                               amounts to a reversible error of law because it constitutes
( 1) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.                                                    a manifest error of appreciation.
( 2) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 151 p. 32.
( 4) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 27.
Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by Office for Harmo-
nization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                 Action brought on 4 May 2001 by the Commission of the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities in case T-193/99 (1) between Wm.
Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                (Case C-192/01)
                        (Case C-191/01 P)                                                          (2001/C 200/91)
                         (2001/C 200/90)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice on 4 May 2001 by the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001              of the European Communities, represented by Hans Christian
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              Støvlbæk, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/51
The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court               Appeal brought on 7 May 2001 by Athanasios Pitsiorlas
                                                                        against the order made on 14 February 2001 by the First
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
—     to declare, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that, by applying         Communities in Case T-3/00 between (1) Athanasios
      an administrative practice whereby enriched foodstuffs            Pitsiorlas and (2) the Council of the European Union and
      which are lawfully marketed and produced in other                                   the European Central Bank
      Member States may be marketed in Denmark only if
      there is a documented need for enrichment of food
      substances in the Danish population, the Kingdom of                                       (Case C-193/01 P)
      Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 28 EC;
                                                                                (2001/C 200/92)
—     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                        An appeal against the order made on 14 February 2001 by the
                                                                        First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-3/00 between (1) Athanasios Pitsiorlas
                                                                        and (2) the Council of the European Union and the European
                                                                        Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities on 7 May 2001 by Athanasios
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pitsiorlas, represented by Dimitrios Papafilippou, of the Thessa-
                                                                        loniki Bar.
The administrative practice followed by the Danish authorities          The appellant claims that the Court should:
on the basis of Paragraph 3 of the Foodstuffs Law indisputably
constitutes an obstacle to trade contrary to Article 28 of the          —     hold the appeal admissible and well founded;
Treaty, in that foodstuffs which are lawfully sold in other
Member States cannot be marketed in Denmark. That obstacle
to trade cannot, in the Commission’s view, be justified on the          —     set aside the order under appeal made by the Court of
ground of public health (see Article 30 of the Treaty).                       First Instance on 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00;
                                                                        —     uphold in their entirety the claims put forward at first
                                                                              instance or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
                                                                              Court of First Instance;
General considerations as to desirable food composition for
the population cannot lawfully ground restrictions on trade.
Reliance on Article 30 of the Treaty presupposes that the               —     order the Council to pay costs at first instance and on
Member State can produce evidence in each individual case                     appeal.
that the obstacle to trade is necessary to protect public health.
                                                                        Grounds of appeal
The Commission recognises that where there are no harmo-
nised rules, it is basically for the Member States to determine         1.    Infringement of Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure
the level of protection which they consider necessary with                    of the Court of First Instance;
respect to public health. The discretion of the Member States
to determine the level of protection must, however, comply
with the principle of proportionality and the measures must             2.    Infringement of the principle of equality of arms;
be necessary to attain the aim sought. The Member States’
assessment of the risk to public health must be determined              3.    Misinterpretation of the Council decision;
on the basis of concrete scientific evidence. The Danish
administrative practice is based on the Codex Alimentarius,             4.    Incorrect finding, selective and consequently defective
which lays down general guidelines on the addition of vitamins                consideration of the facts resulting in infringement of
to foodstuffs. The guidelines do not give an independent                      Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
scientific basis for introducing a prohibition on enrichment of
food substances with vitamins.
                                                                        5.    Failure to apply the case-law concerning excusable error
                                                                              or, entirely in the alternative, an excessively strict appli-
                                                                              cation of that case-law.


title: Case T-787/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/56

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case T-787/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of 18 September 2014, in Case F-26/12, Cerafogli v ECB;

               —

               rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance; and

               —

               to award each party its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an erroneous extrapolation of the Grolsch case-law to staff cases thereby misinterpreting the scope of the principle of effective judicial protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter and the inadequacy of the grounds.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the rights of defence of the institution, disregarding the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, and a failure to take account of relevant facts and misinterpretation of the principle of legal certainty.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging erroneous conclusions drawn from the nature of a plea of illegality, the misinterpretation of Article 277 TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a failure to take account of the facts of the present case, and an infringement of the principle of proportionality.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-515/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/76)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 11 July 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-515/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-32/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgerichts Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2013 — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgerichts Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2013 — Petra Würker v Familienkasse Nürnberg
   (Case C-32/13)
   2013/C 147/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgerichts Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Petra Würker

      Respondent: Familienkasse Nürnberg

      Question referred

               1.

               Must Articles 77 or 78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that receipt of a child raising pension (Erziehungsrente) confers a right against the Member State which pays the pension?

               2.

               Has the situation changed from 1 May 2010 with the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) and must Article 67 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that any type of pension (including a German child raising pension) triggers the right?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case C-91/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/11

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel
   (Case C-91/14 P)
   (2014/C 462/17)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (represented by: M. Konieczyński and I. Kubiec, adwokaci)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel Corp.
   By order of 2 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in its entirety, in part as being inadmissible, and ordered Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-213/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ — Earlier Community word mark NORMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2011 — Yorma's v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S)
   (Case T-213/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark including the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 95/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. von Welser, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 (Case R 1879/2007-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Yorma’s AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Yorma’s AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-57/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Legal costs — Lawyers’ fees — Flat-rate reimbursement — Maximum amounts — Costs of a technical adviser — Reimbursement — Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV
   (Case C-57/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Legal costs - Lawyers’ fees - Flat-rate reimbursement - Maximum amounts - Costs of a technical adviser - Reimbursement - Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party))
   (2016/C 350/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: United Video Properties Inc.

      Defendant: Telenet NV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the successful party, which offers the courts responsible for making that order the possibility of taking into account features specific to the case before it, and provides for a flat-rate scheme for the reimbursement of costs for the assistance of a lawyer, subject to the condition that those rates ensure that the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party are reasonable, which it is for the referring court to determine. However, Article 14 of that directive precludes national legislation providing flat-rates which, owing to the maximum amounts that it contains being too low, do not ensure that, at the very least, that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party;

               2.

               Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing that reimbursement of the costs of a technical adviser are provided for only in the event of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party, given that those costs are directly and closely linked to a judicial action seeking to have such an intellectual property right upheld.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-420/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2014  — VHV v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/59

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2014 — VHV v Commission
   (Case T-420/12) (1)

   2014/C 292/75
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case C-97/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo — Italy) — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo (Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31/EC — Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills — Landfill operator subject to that levy — Operating costs of a landfill — Directive 2000/35/EC — Default interest — Obligations of the national court)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo — Italy) — Amia SpA, in liquidation v Provincia Regionale di Palermo
   (Case C-97/11) (1)

   (Environment - Landfill of waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills - Landfill operator subject to that levy - Operating costs of a landfill - Directive 2000/35/EC - Default interest - Obligations of the national court)
   2012/C 200/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amia SpA, in liquidation

      Defendant: Provincia Regionale di Palermo

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Palermo — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (JO 2000 L 200, p. 35) and of Articles 12, 14, 43 et 46 EC — National legislation establishing a special tax on the dumping of solid waste in a landfill, and placing the landfill operator under an obligation to pre-pay the tax, the amount of which depends on the volume of waste dumped and which is payable by the party which dumps the waste at the landfill.

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

               —

               It is for the referring court, first, before disapplying the relevant provisions of Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 on measures to rationalise public finances, to establish whether, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law, both substantive and procedural, there is no possibility of reaching an interpretation of its national law with which to resolve the case in the main proceedings in a manner consistent with the wording and purpose of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, and Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions;

               —

               If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the referring court to disapply, in the main proceedings, any national provision contrary to Article 10 of Directive 1999/31 as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 and Articles 1 to 3 of Directive 2000/35.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 1997 in Case C-22/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland): Irish Farmers Association and Others v. Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Ireland and the Attorney General (Additional milk levy - Reference quantity - Temporary withdrawal - Conversion - Definitive reduction - Loss of compensation)

text:
31 . 5 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/ 1
                                                                     I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as
                                                                        President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                        Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,
                          of 15 April 1997                              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.
                                                                        von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
in Case C-22/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:
the High Court of Ireland ): Irish Farmers Association and
Others v. Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry,
                Ireland and the Attorney General ( ] )
(Additional milk levy — Reference quantity — Temporary                  In so far as those provisions converted the temporary
withdrawal — Conversion — Definitive reduction — Loss                   withdrawal of a percentage of the reference quantity
                          of compensation)                              within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 77SI
                                                                        87 of 16 March 1987 temporarily withdrawing a
                             ( 97/C 166/01 )                            proportion of the reference quantities mentioned in
                                                                        Article 5c (I ) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the
                                                                        common organization of the market in milk and milk
                                                                        products, without compensation, into a definitive
                   (Language of the case: English)                      reduction, consideration of the general principles of
                                                                         Community law such as the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations, non-discrimination and proportionality as
                                                                        well as consideration of the fundamental right to property
In Case C-22/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177              has disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of,
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Ireland for a                   first, Article 5c (3) (g) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization
court between Irish Farmers Association and Others and                   of the market in milk and milk products, as inserted by
Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Ireland and                 Article 1 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 of
the Attorney General — on the validity, first, of Article 5c             31 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68
 ( 3 ) ( g ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 of the Council of           and, secondly, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market                   No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an
 in milk and milk products ( OJ, English Special Edition                 additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, as
 1968 (I ), p. 176 ), as inserted by Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council          amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC)
 Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 of 31 March 1992 amending                    No 1560/93 of 14 June 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( OJ No L 86, 1992, p. 83 )                No 3950/92 .
 and, secondly, of Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC)
 No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an
 additional levy in the milk and milk products sector ( OJ               C ) Oj No C 76 of 12 . 3 . 1994 .
 No L 405 , 1992, p. 1 ), as amended by Article 1 of
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1560/93 of 14 June 1993
 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 ( OJ No L 154,
 1993 , p. 30 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of:


title: Case T-429/10: Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Action brought on 17 September 2010 — Global Steel Wire v Commission
   (Case T-429/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/99
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandí Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, annul, under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP 38344 — Prestressing steel;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce, under Article 261 TFEU, the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-426/10 (Moreda-Rivière Trefilerías v Commission).
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those advanced in that case.
   In particular, the applicant submits that the European Commission failed to meet the standard of proof required by Community case-law when it held GSW liable for the conduct of its subsidiaries. The European Commission did not prove that GSW was able to exercise a decisive influence over the conduct of the companies in which it held shares.


title: Case T-216/16: Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/42

         Action brought on 11 May 2016 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE)
   (Case T-216/16)
   (2016/C 243/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vignerons de la Méditerranée (Narbonne, France) (represented by: M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL (Rueda, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word elements ‘LE VAL FRANCE’ — Application for registration No 12 162 921

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2016 in Case R 427/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject opposition No B 2 307 737 brought by the company Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL against EU trade mark application No 12 162 921 submitted by the company Vignerons de la Méditerranée;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-130/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-130/13)
   2013/C 171/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

                           (b)

                           are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account the fact that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?


title: Election of the Presidents of Chambers

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/12

         Election of the Presidents of Chambers
   (2004/C 251/22)
   On 10 and 13 September 2004 the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 15 of its Rules of Procedure, elected Judge Jaeger, Judge Pirrung, Judge Vilaras and Judge Legal as Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges for the period from 10 September 2004 to 31 August 2007 and Judge Jaeger, Judge Pirrung, Judge Vilaras, Judge Legal and Judge Cooke as Presidents of the Chambers composed of three Judges for the period from 13 September 2004 to 30 September 2005.


title: Case T-472/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark LegalPro — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)
   (Case T-472/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark LegalPro - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 (Case R 146/2016-4) concerning the application for registration of the word sign ‘LegalPro’ as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marsh GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case F-51/07: Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Bui Van v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/43

         Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Bui Van v Commission
   (Case F-51/07)
   (2007/C 170/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange Grande, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and R. Albelice, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2007 not to accept the applicant's complaint;

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of 4 October 2006 in so far as it reclassifies the applicant in Grade AST 3, Step 2, whereas he had initially been classified in Grade AST 4, Step 2;

               —

               state to the Appointing Authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, classification in Grade AST 4, Step 2, the retroactive effect of appointment in Grade AST 4, Step 2, from the date the post was first taken up, the consequences in regard to different remuneration and default interest on the payment of the difference, as well as consequences in regard to promotion;

               —

               award the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro by way of compensation for his non-material loss;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a successful candidate in Open Competition EPSO/B/23/04 (1) for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of laboratory technicians in Grade B5/B4, was appointed as a probationary official after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2). An initial decision of 28 June 2006 classifying the applicant in Grade AST 4 was withdrawn and replaced by the contested decision classifying the applicant in Grade AST 3.
   In support of his application, the applicant relies first on infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, in particular in so far as some of his colleagues, who had been similarly downgraded, were reclassified in Grade AST 4 at the end of the pre-litigation procedure.
   Second, the applicant pleads a manifest error of assessment and breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant submits, in particular, that the decision of 28 June 2006 was not withdrawn within a reasonable time.

      (1)  OJ C 81 A, 31.3.2004, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-612/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 December 2014  — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 December 2014 — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG
   (Case C-612/14)
   (2015/C 089/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stephan Naumann

      Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the right to compensation provided for in Article 7 (Right to compensation) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) be interpreted as referring to a right to a standardised compensation payment, a contractual penalty, a right to punitive damages, a right in the nature of a claim to performance and remedies (Gewährleistung), or a sui generis right?

               2.

               Must the deduction of compensation referred to in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 12 (Further compensation) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as being required only in relation to the passenger’s right to further compensation from the operating air carrier or also in relation to the passenger’s right to further compensation from the tour operator?

               3.

               Must the passenger’s right to further compensation provided for by Article 12 (Further compensation) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as including a right to a price reduction (Gewährleistung) for a delayed flight under national law?

               4.

               Can a right to a price reduction (Gewährleistung) and/or a right to compensation for a flight delay which the tour operator grants to a passenger under national law be deducted (Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004) from an entitlement to compensation from the operating air carrier pursuant to Article 7 (Right to compensation) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 in respect of the same delay?

               5.

               In so far as deduction is possible: can the air carrier always apply it, or does it depend on the extent to which national law permits it or the court regards it as appropriate?

               6.

               In so far as national law is decisive or the court has to take a decision at its own discretion: should the compensation payment pursuant to Article 7 of the regulation compensate the passenger only for inconvenience and the time lost due to the delay, or should it also compensate him for material damage?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-402/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 September 2006 — Op- en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 September 2006 — Op- en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-402/06)
   (2006/C 310/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Op- en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the heading 0406 of the CN be interpreted in such a way that it can accommodate the classification of a product obtained from curdled milk from which (a great deal of) the serum has been extracted, of a whey-albumin content, by weight, not exceeding 2 percent, and of which the albumins were broken down during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours through the action of an added enzyme?
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               What criteria are to be used with regard to fat content and appearance to determine whether a product should be classified as grated cheese or as powdered cheese under the subheading 0406 20, in other words:

                           a)

                           Can a product which is fat free or virtually fat free, be classified under this subheading?

                           b)

                           Can a product which consists of casein and more than 50 % moisture (serum/whey) and having the appearance of regular granules 2 to 4 mm in size, be classified under this subheading?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2000 in Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotions — Grade A 2 post — Action for annulment)

text:
18.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/23
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 18 July 1997 refusing to             of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
     recognise the applicant as an interested party in the context of the   Judges; M.A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     antidumping proceeding leading to the adoption of Commission           a judgment on 18 January 2000, in which it:
     Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a
     provisional antidumping duty on imports of unbleached cotton           1. Dismisses the action;
     fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt,
     India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey;
                                                                            2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred
     by its request for a ruling that there was no need to adjudicate;
4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
     Ireland to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 2000
                                                                            in Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotions — Grade A 2 post — Action for
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                            annulment)
                          of 18 January 2000                                                         (2000/C 79/51)
in Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV v Commission                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis, an official of the
(Action for annulment — Poultry imports — Article 13                        Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Commission decision                        sels, represented by Eleni Metaxaki and Panayotis Giatagantzi-
refusing repayment of agricultural levies — Revoked —                       dis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
Statement for the file — Legality — Legitimate expectations                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki,
— Legal certainty — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty                    4 rue de l’Avenir, against Commission of the European
                          to provide reasons)                               Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and
                                                                            Paraskevas Anestis) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                            decision to appoint Antonio Caeiro as Principal Legal Adviser
                            (2000/C 79/50)                                  at the Commission, the decision rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                            candidature for the same post and the implied decision of the
                                                                            Commission rejecting the applicant’s complaint — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
                                                                            trar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2000, in which it:
In Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV, a company
incorporated under Netherlands law, established in Rotterdam,               1. dismisses the application.
the Netherlands, represented by Pierre Bos, Jasper Helder and
Marco Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Hendrick van Lier and Jules Stuyck ) — application                 (1) OJ 1998 C 327.
for annulment of Commission Decision C (97) 2331 of 22 July
1997 refusing the application submitted by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands for repayment to the applicant of agricultural
levies — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed


title: Action brought on 9 September 1995 by Diego Echauz Brigaldi, José-Luís Buendía Sierra, César Montoliu García, María Jesús Ruíz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López, Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María Carmen Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-156/95)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 77/ 11
Action brought on 9 September 1995 by Diego Echauz                  special leave and travelling time for elections, which it had
Brigaldi, José-Luís Buendía Sierra, César Montoliu García,          been granting to officials of Spanish nationality whose
María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,                 official place of residence continues to be in Spain, in order
Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,                  to go to exercise their constitutional right to vote at various
Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María              elections .
Carmen      Labrador     Rubio,    Carmen    Casado     Salinas,
Diego González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín,                     The applicant officials claim that, by not taking account of
Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray against             either the characteristics of Spanish electoral law or the
       the Commission of the European Communities                   relevant provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and
                       ( Case T-156/95 )                            Immunities of the European Communities, the Commission
                                                                    has committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                          ( 96/C 77/28 )                            facts .
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      The applicants also allege that essential procedural
                                                                    requirements have been infringed inasmuch as the
                                                                    provisioins abolishing special leave and travelling time,
An action against the Commission of the European                    which constitutes the subject-matter of the dispute, were
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   approved only at the level of the Board of Heads of
Instance of the European Communities on 9 September                 Administration without following the concertation
1995 by Diego Echauz Brigaldi , Jose-Luis Buendía Sierra ,          procedure or consulting the Staff Regulations Committee, a
Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy,                     body in which all the institutions are jointly represented by
Carmen Ochoa de Michelena , Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke,            their respective Staff Committees . That procedure was,
Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón,                        nonetheless, mandatory since it concerned a decision
Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio,              affecting all officials .
Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra           Moreover, the defendant institution has disregarded the
Utray, all of whom are officials of the Commission of the           principle of non-discrimination in that there was no single
European Communities and residing at Brussels,                      inter-institutional criterion when applying the new
represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, of the Burgos                 restrictive provisions in the present case .
Bar .
                                                                    Finally, the applicants rely on other legal grounds, such as
                                                                    breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        acquired rights .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 2 May
     1995 in response to a complaint submitted by Diego
     Echauz Brigaldi and the rest of the officials on List A, by
     which the Commission refused special leave for elections
     and travelling time in order to exercise the right to vote     Action brought on 1 December 1995 by Azienda Agricola
     of those officials working for the Commission of               'Le Canne' SRL against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
     Spanish nationality whose official residence continues to
     be in Spain and who travelled to Spain for the European                                  ( Case T-218/95 )
     Parliament elections of June 1994,                                                          ( 96/C 77/29 )
— annul the implied rejection in the same terms as above in                         (Language of the case: Italian)
     respect of the officials in List B,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— furthermore, in view of the economic consequences of              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     the present case, require the Commission either to             Instance of the European Communities on 1 December
     compensate each official on List A and List B with the         1995 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' SRL, whose registered
     days used by each of them to travel to Spain to vote, in       office is at Porto Viro ( Rovigo ), Italy, represented by Giulio
     accordance with the table appearing in Opinion                 Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonnetto, of
     No 201/92 of 18 December 1991 on special leave for             the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     elections adopted by the Board of the Heads of                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     Administration, or to pay them for the days used,              of Guy Arendt.
— order the Commission of the European Communities to               The applicant claims that the Court should :
     pay the costs of these proceedings .
                                                                    — declare void the contested act of the Commission, Note
                                                                        No 12497 of 27 October 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                    — order the Commission to make good the damage,
Several officials of Spanish nationality at the Commission of
the European Communities contest the decision to abolish            — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case C-456/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG v Samskip GmbH
   (Case C-456/11)
   2011/C 331/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG, ERGO Versicherung AG, Versicherungskammer Bayern-Versicherungsanstalt des öffentlichen Rechts, Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs-AG, Krones AG

      Defendant: Samskip GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers in principle those judgments which are restricted to the finding that the procedural requirements for admissibility are not satisfied (so-called ‘procedural judgments’)?

               2.

               Are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘judgment’ also covers a final judgment by which a court is found to have no international jurisdiction by virtue of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

               3.

               In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the principle of further effects (Case C-145/86 Hoffmann v Krieg [1988] ECR 645), are Articles 32 and 33 of Brussels I to be interpreted to the effect that each Member State is required to recognise the judgments of a court or tribunal of another Member State on the effectiveness of an agreement conferring jurisdiction between the parties, where the finding as to the effectiveness of the agreement conferring jurisdiction has become final under the national law of the first court, even where that decision forms part of a judgment on a procedural matter dismissing the action?

      (1)  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).