title: Case C-28/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999 in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/13
a) Is a direct, extraordinary, periodic tax (0.75 % per annum;             imposed by the Regulation but aeroplanes wholly re-engined
     Decree-Law No 394/92, converted into Law No 461/92,                   with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three are
     extended by Decree-Law No 564/94, converted into Law                  subject to prohibitions, having regard in particular to:
     No 656/94 and extended by Law No 549/95) compatible
     with Community law, and in particular with Directive
     No 69/335/EEC? (1)                                                    (i) the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
b) Having regard to the teleological criterion which, EEC                  (ii) the general principle of proportionality;
     case-law shows, is to be preferred to literal and systematic
     criteria, is it lawful to levy the tax on assets upon capital,
     as defined under the heading ‘Passivo/A) Patrimonio netto/I           (iii) such rights as private parties may derive from the General
     Capitale’ in Article 2424(2) of the Civil Code, as amended                  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and/or the Agreement on
     by Article 5 of Decree-Law No 127/91, where that capital                    Technical Barriers to Trade?
     has already been assessed to an initial tax on contributions
     in accordance with Presidential Decree No 131/86?
                                                                           (1) On the registration and operation within the Community of
                                                                                certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been
                                                                                modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume 1,
(1) Council Directive of 17 July 1969 (OJ, English Special Edition              Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
    1969 (II), p. 405).                                                         Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ L 115 of 4.5.1999,
(2) Article 2424 of the Civil Code sets out a number of balance sheet           p. 1) and Corrigendum (OJ L 120 of 8.5.1999, p. 47).
    items.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                           Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999
                                                                           in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsan-
                                                                                stalt der Angestellten
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 December                                                   (Case C-28/00)
1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte:
                                                                                (2000/C 102/22)
                           Omega Air Ltd
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (Case C-27/00)                                 European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
                                                                           hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 14 December 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2000, for a
                          (2000/C 102/21)                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsver-
                                                                           sicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      Is Article 94(1) to (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown                   of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
Office), of 21 December 1999, which was received at the                    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Court Registry on 31 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling                members of their families moving within the Community (1),
in the case of the Queen against Secretary of State for the                as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: Omega Air                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2), as amended by Council
Ltd, on the following question:                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), to be
                                                                           interpreted as precluding a national provision under which,
                                                                           for the purpose of pension insurance, periods of child-rearing
                                                                           in the country are to be regarded as substitute qualifying
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1)                 periods but such periods in a Member State of the EEA (in this
invalid insofar as it defines ‘recertificated civil subsonic jet           case Belgium) are to be regarded as such only where they occur
aeroplanes’ so that re-engined aeroplanes ‘with engines having             after that Agreement entered into force (1 January 1994) and,
a by-pass ratio of three or more’ are not subject to prohibitions          in addition, only on condition that entitlement to a cash benefit
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
stemming from maternity insurance under the (Austrian)                      Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission
Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Security) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or to a                  ered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the
maternity benefit under the (Austrian) Betriebshilfegesetz                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
exists, or existed, in respect of that child?                               Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
                                                                            GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by
                                                                            Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                          the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, support-
(3) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 28.                                                   ed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
                                                                            (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH
                                                                            and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération
                                                                            Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                            Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-32/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that
court of 21 January 2009 in the case of Conseil National                                            (2000/C 102/24)
    de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December
                           (Case C-31/00)                                   1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)
                                                                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                          (2000/C 102/23)                                   Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                            Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
European Communities by judgment of the First Chamber of                    (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and
the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium) of                     T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
21 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on                C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
7 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil            ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
National de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen               European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
on the following question:                                                  rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
                                                                            European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 7 February 2000 by the
Do Articles 5 and 52 of the Treaty of Rome mean that the                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
competent authority of a Member State before which a                        Mr Xavier Lewis, Member of the Legal Service, acting as agent,
Community national who holds a diploma obtained in another                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Member State makes an application for authorisation to                      Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
practise a profession to which access is, in accordance with
national legislation, subject to the possession of a diploma or
a vocational qualification, is required to take account of the              The Appellant claims that the Court should:
diploma relied upon by the applicant and to make a compari-
son between the competence and qualifications evidenced by
that diploma and the competence and qualifications required                 1. Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
under the national rules, even where there exists, with regard                  Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96
to the profession in question, a directive adopted by the                       Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
Council on the basis of Article 57(1) and (2) of the Treaty, and                ringer Sohn v. Council of the European Union and
that directive provides, so far as concerns courses of study                    T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
started or followed during a transitional period, an exhaustive                 C.H. Boehringer Sohn v. Commission of the European
list of the diplomas or certificates, awarded in the various                    Communities which annuls Commission Regulation (EC)
Member States, enabling practice of the profession concerned                    No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council
in the other Member States, where the applicant falls within                    Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community
the scope of those transitional arrangements and the diploma                    procedure for the establishment of maximum residue
on which he relies is not included in that exhaustive list?                     limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                                animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) in so far as it restricts
                                                                                the validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol
                                                                                to certain specified therapeutic indications for bovines and
                                                                                equines;


title: Case T-318/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/36

         Action brought on 28 August 2007 — National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission
   (Case T-318/07)
   (2007/C 247/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (Chester-le-Street, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Bracegirdle, Solicitor, M. Hoskins and C. West, Barristers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 be annulled.

               —

               The Commission pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Decision in Case COMP/35.821 of 18 June 2007 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint made in 1990 that members of its association had been the victims of a price discrimination as the prices paid by the Central Electricity Generating Board (‘CEGB’) between 1984-1990 for coal produced by members of the applicant was lower than the prices paid by the CEGB for coal produced by the British Coal Corporation (‘BCC’), without there being any objective justification for that difference in treatment.
   The Commission found in the contested decision that there was a difference between the prices paid by the CEGB to the applicant's members and the prices paid to the BCC, but sustained that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal under comparable conditions. The CEGB was therefore justified in paying higher prices for the BCC's coal in order to ensure that it would meet its statutory duty to supply the electricity needed in the United Kingdom.
   In support of its application, the applicant contends that the Commission's finding that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal under comparable conditions was not supported by the evidence upon which the Commission based its decision.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the payment of a premium price for the BCC's coal would constitute state aid that had not been notified and which would therefore be unlawful.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission's findings are inconsistent with a previous Commission decision from 1991 in respect of the same complaint.
   As regards the Commission's rejection of the applicant's complaint in relation to the period from 1984 to 1986 on grounds of inadmissibility and lack of Community interest, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the Commission erred in finding that it no longer enjoys an exclusive competence under the ECSC Treaty to rule on the existence of discrimination in the said period;

               —

               the Commission erred in finding that the applicant's members can bring claims before the national courts in respect of the said period; and

               —

               the delay in resolving the issues raised in the applicant's complaint from 1990 is the result of previous legal errors made by the Commission.


title: Case C-128/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/31

         Appeal brought on 29 February 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 17 December 2015 in Joined Case T-515/13 and T-719/13 Spain and Others v Commission

   (Case C-128/16 P)
   (2016/C 156/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: the Kingdom of Spain, Lico Leasing, S.A.U. and Pequeños y Medianos Astilleros Sociedad de Reconversión, S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 in Joined Cases T-515/13 and T-719/13;

               —

               remit the case to the General Court;

               —

               order the applicants to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards the notions of ‘undertakings’ and ‘selective advantage’; in its interpretation and application of the duty to state reasons; and in its distortion of the contested decision as regards selectivity.

                           —

                           The General Court erred in law and distorted the decision in misinterpreting the selective nature of a tax advantage reserved for undertakings which pursue a particular economic activity and which were set up by the economic interest grouping (EIG) and their partners; and in incorrectly characterising the reasons given.

                           —

                           The General Court erred in law in its analysis of the selective advantage resulting from discretionary power on the part of the national tax authorities.

                           —

                           The General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the notion of ‘selectivity’ by excluding selectivity with regard to a measure reserved for taxable persons making certain investments.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law and distorted the contested decision in interpreting and applying the duty to state reasons in relation to effects on competition and effects on trade in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.


title: Case T-279/08: Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/15

         Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis v Commission
   (Case T-279/08)
   (2008/C 247/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis (represented by: M.-Y Benjamin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision No C 38/2007 of the Commission of 2 April 2008.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision C(2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008 by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the applicant and the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA in the form of advances repayable at an annual rate of interest of 4,08 % corresponding to the Community reference rate applicable when the loan was granted. The Commission considered that, taking into account its financial standing, Arbel Fauvet Rail SA would not have been able to obtain funds on such favourable terms in the financial market.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-267/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission.


title: Case C-215/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 3(3) — Concept of ‘distinctive character acquired through use’ — Three-dimensional mark — Kit Kat four finger chocolate-coated wafer — Article 3(1)(e) — Sign which consists of both the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves and the shape which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Manufacturing process included in the technical result)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd
   (Case C-215/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 3(3) - Concept of ‘distinctive character acquired through use’ - Three-dimensional mark - Kit Kat four finger chocolate-coated wafer - Article 3(1)(e) - Sign which consists of both the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves and the shape which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Manufacturing process included in the technical result))
   (2015/C 371/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA

      Defendant: Cadbury UK Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, provided, however, that at least one of the grounds for refusal of registration set out in that provision is fully applicable to the shape at issue.

               2.

               Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95, under which registration may be refused of signs consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, must be interpreted as referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function and it does not apply to the manner in which the goods are manufactured.

               3.

               In order to obtain registration of a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, regardless of whether that use is as part of another registered trade mark or in conjunction with such a mark, the trade mark applicant must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by the mark applied for, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular company.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-662/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless — Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless)
   (Case T-662/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Sunless - Earlier Community word marks SUNLESS and LONCAR-SUNLESS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 71/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Müller (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Loncar, SL (Sabadell, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 2508/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Loncar, SL and Mr Thomas Müller

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Thomas Müller to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-762/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 – Philips and Philips France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Smart card chips — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Exchange of commercially sensitive information — Infringement by object — Single and continuous infringement — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Proof — 2006 Leniency Notice — Settlement Notice — Limitation period — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 – Philips and Philips France v Commission
   (Case T-762/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Smart card chips - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Exchange of commercially sensitive information - Infringement by object - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Proof - 2006 Leniency Notice - Settlement Notice - Limitation period - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales))
   (2017/C 038/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Koninklijke Philips NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands), Philips France, (Suresnes, France) (represented by: J. de Pree, S. Molin, A. ter Haar and T.M. Snoep, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes, J. Norris-Usher and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) or, in the alternative, for the cancellation of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France to bear their own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-411/02: Action brought on 18 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
11.1.2003                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/17
Action brought on 18 November 2002 by the Com-                            Action brought on 21 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-                    mission of the European Communities against the United
                            lic of Austria                                       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                          (Case C-411/02)                                                            (Case C-421/02)
                            (2003/C 7/31)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/32)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
18 November 2002 by the Commission of the European                        Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Michael                the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
Shotter of its Legal Service, with an address for service in              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its legal           Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
service, Wagner Center C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                       Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, as the itemised billing adopted by the Austria
       Republic, which indicates the composition of the charges           1)    declare that by failing to adopt in Wales the laws,
       only according to the type of charge, is not sufficiently                regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
       detailed to ensure efficient control by the consumer, the                comply with Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 85/337/
       Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                 EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
       under Article 14(2) of Directive 98/10/EC of the European                private projects on the environment as amended by
       Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on                     Directive 97/11/EC ( 1) in relation to projects listed in
       the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice                 Annex II, paragraph 1 (b) of that Directive, or, in
       telephony and on universal service for telecommuni-                      any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the
       cations in a competitive environment (1);                                Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fully fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that Directive;
2.     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          2)    declare that by failing to adopt in England and Wales,
                                                                                Scotland and Northern Ireland the laws, regulations or
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                projects on the environment as amended by Directive 97/
                                                                                11/EC in relation to projects listed in Annex II, para-
Article 14(2) of Directive 98/10/EC provides for a basic level
                                                                                graph 1 (c) of that Directive, or, in any event, by failing
of itemised billing to be available at no extra charge to the user
                                                                                to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United
of public telephone services. It is therefore not permissible to
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed
charge a fee for the basic level of itemised billing. Consequently,
                                                                                to fully fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
only a free standard billing which includes a basic level of
itemised billing within the meaning of Article 14(2) of
Directive 98/10/EC can be regarded as complying with the                  3)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
requirements of that directive. That is, however, not the                       Ireland to pay the costs.
situation in Austria. The standard billing which is provided
free of charge under the Austrian Law on telecommunications
contains only the composition of the charges according to the
category of call (regional calls, supra-regional calls, and
international calls). It cannot therefore be accepted as a basic          Pleas in law and main arguments
level of itemised billing, because it is too general to enable the
user actually to verify and control the charges incurred for
each individual call.
                                                                          The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities
                                                                          of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures
( 1) (OJ 1981 L 101, p. 24.                                               necessary for incorporating Directive 85/337/EEC into dom-
                                                                          estic law so that such process is complete wihin the time limit
                                                                          laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and
                                                                          to inform the Commission thereof.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 February 1998 in Case C-249/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton): Lisa Jacqueline Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd (Equal treatment of men and women - Refusal of travel concessions to cohabitees of the same sex)

text:
C 113/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
the purpose of applying that rule against overlapping, of               laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the benefits in question.                                               the principle of equal pay for men and women.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                                 (2) OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19.
(2) Official Journal English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.         (3) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 February 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   in Case C-212/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Tribunal Administratif, Saint-Denis de la ReÂunion):
                      of 17 February 1998                               Paul Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil ReÂgional de la
                                                                                ReÂunion (1)
in Case C-249/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Southampton): Lisa Jacqueline                  (Dock dues' (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to
               Grant v. South-West Trains Ltd (1)                       the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
                                                                        Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty
(Equal treatment of men and women Ð Refusal of travel                                        Ð Internal taxation)
          concessions to cohabitees of the same sex)
                                                                                (98/C 113/10)
                          (98/C 113/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: English)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-249/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                    In Case C-212/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Industrial Tribunal,              Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
Southampton, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                Administratif (Administrative Court), Saint-Denis de la
pending before that tribunal between Lisa Jacqueline                    ReÂunion, France, for a preliminary ruling in the
Grant and South-West Trains Ltd Ð on the interpretation                 proceedings pending before that court between Paul
of Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Council Directive 75/117/              Chevassus-Marche and Conseil ReÂgional de la ReÂunion Ð
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the                     on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 13 and the
laws of the Member States relating to the application of                second paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, and on
the principle of equal pay for men and women (2), and                   the interpretation and validity of Council Decision 89/688/
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  EEC of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                  (octroi de mer) in the French overseas departments (2) Ð
men and women as regards access to employment,                          the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
vocational training and promotion, and working                          President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
conditions (3), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                 (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                       de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.                 Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                    and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; D.
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G.                      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
which it has ruled:                                                     Consideration of Council Decision 89/688/EEC of
                                                                        22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
                                                                        French overseas departments, in so far as it authorises a
                                                                        system of exemptions from the charge termed octroi de
The refusal by an employer to allow travel concessions to               mer subject to strict conditions which it lays down, has
the person of the same sex with whom a worker has a                     disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.
stable relationship, where such concessions are allowed to
a worker's spouse or to the person of the opposite sex
with whom a worker has a stable relationship outside                    (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 46.
marriage, does not constitute discrimination prohibited by
Article 119 of the EC Treaty or Council Directive 75/117/
EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2002 in Case C-395/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 20 — Export to non-member countries of products under duty-suspension arrangements — Products having to be considered not to have arrived at their destination by reason of the falsification of the accompanying document — Place of the offence or irregularity unknown — Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable)

text:
C 19/4                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 12 December 2002
                                                                                of 28 November 2002
in Case C-395/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Trento): Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA
                                                                             in Case C-417/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   v Ministero delle Finanze (1)
                                                                             the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt):
                                                                             Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG v Amt für Landwirtsch-
                                                                                aft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, ( 1)
(Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 20 — Export to non-
member countries of products under duty-suspension
arrangements — Products having to be considered not to                       (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
have arrived at their destination by reason of the falsification             92 — Integrated administration and control system for
of the accompanying document — Place of the offence or                       certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
irregularity unknown — Determination of the Member State                     Aid linked to set-aside of land — Declaration of area of set-
               in which excise duty is chargeable)                           aside — Failure to give notice, after submission of the aid
                                                                             application, of a decrease of the area of set-aside — Penalties)
                           (2003/C 19/06)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/07)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-417/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-395/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   EC by the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt
EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a preliminary                      (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  before that court between Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch eG
Distillerie Fratelli Cipriani SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on            and Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt, on
the interpretation of Article 20(2) and (3) of Council Directive             the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements                    (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,                      rules for applying the integrated administration and control
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,                      system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
p. 1), the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President, M. Wathelet,                    95 of 3 February 1995 (OJ 1995 L 27, p. 3) and 1648/95 of
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                      6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                    composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;                  acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December               P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 judgment on 28 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
Article 20(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992             23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and          integrated administration and control system for certain Community
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products is invalid          aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 229/
in so far as the period prescribed therein of four months for evidence       95 of 3 February 1995 and 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, must be
to be provided of the correctness of the transaction or of the place         interpreted as meaning that the penalties prescribed by that provision
where the irregularity or offence was actually committed may be relied       are not limited to cases in which the farmer has made erroneous or
on against a trader who has guaranteed the payment of the excise             false declarations at the time when the aid application was submitted
duties but was not in a position to know, at the appropriate time,           but that they also apply where the farmer has failed to notify the
that the duty-suspension arrangement had not been discharged.                competent authority of changes affecting the conditions governing
                                                                             grant of the aid.
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.


title: Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-187/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 210/9
the European Communities, represented by Hendrik Van                  protection of property and the principles of equal treatment
Lier and Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an             and protection of legitimate expectations ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service .                                    (') OJ No L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 I, p . 176 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 86 , 1 . 4 . 1992 , p . 83 .
— declare that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August
     1993 relating to preparations with a basis of foie gras,
    without taking account of the contents of the detailed
    opinion and the .reasoned opinion of the Commission
    concerning mutual recognition, the French Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the          Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
    Treaty,                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-187/96 )
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( 96/C 210/21 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice on 3 June 1 996 by the Commission of
Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty : the                     the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
Commission considers that, while the prevention of fraud              of the Commission's Legal Service , with an address for
constitutes a legitimate objective, national rules preventing         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gômez de la
the marketing, under the names provided for therein, of               Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
products which do not comply with the requirements laid               Centre, Kirchberg.
down in those rules are disproportionate . The Commission
acknowledges that, in the absence of any equivalent rules in
the other Member States, the mutual recognition provision             The applicant claims that the Court should :
which it requires will not have any immediate effect;
however, it regards such a provision as necessary, in order           — declare that, in so far as it excludes, by regulation or
that the marketing in France of preparations with a basis of                administrative practice, account being taken in
foie gras which are legally manufactured and marketed on                    awarding seniority and grading for salary purposes to an
the territory of another Member State should not be                         employee in the Greek public service of previous service
prohibited in the future .                                                  in the public service of another Member State of the
                                                                            Community, on the sole ground that the previous service
                                                                            was not performed in the national public service, the
                                                                            Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Community law, in particular Articles 5 and 48 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 1612/68 ( M ,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 19 March
1996 in the case of Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt                     — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                               Trier
                         ( Case C-186/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                            96/C 210/20 )
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the said regulations, although
                                                                      not comprising express discrimination by reason of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                nationality, nevertheless introduce covert discrimination to
European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof               the detriment of nationals of other Member States of the
( Federal Finance Court ) of 19 March 1996 , which was                Community . The fact that in certain cases previous service in
received at the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a                 a foreign public service will , exceptionally, be recognized
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefan Demand v.                    corroborates non-recognition in all other cases . Moreover,
Hauptzollamt Trier on the following question :                        the case-law of the Areios Pagos ( Greek Supreme Court of
                                                                      Cassation ), which is consistent with Community law, on the
Are the combined provisions of Article 4(1 ) and the first            matter, relied upon by the Greek authorities, shows that the
paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 (')           regulations in question are obscure and give rise to legal
— whereby the suspension , under Article 5 c ( 3 ) ( g ) of           disputes .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation
( EEC ) No 8 1 6/92 ( 3 ), of part of the reference quantities       The Commission maintains that those regulations are
allocated to producers was transformed without                       capable of deterring Greek citizens from exercising their
compensation into a permanent reduction of those reference            right to free movement within the Community and adds that
quantities, without exempting from that reduction at least            although the Member States are free, in the absence of
additional quantities acquired by producers — compatible              harmonization, to lay down the conditions under which
with Community law, and in particular with the right to the          previous service in the public sector will be recognized,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
nevertheless they may not create obstacles to the exercise of               evidence, that he had had advance knowledge of the
the fundamental freedoms derived from the Treaty.                           model answers to the accounting and possibly the
                                                                            auditing questions, or of both the model answers and the
Lastly, in the Commission's view the present case does not                  questions themselves; the principles that no one may be
concern access to posts within the public administration but                obliged to incriminate himself cannot be relied on to
rather compliance with the principles of freedom of                         justify a total failure to cooperate in establishing the
movement and equal treatment in relation to conditions of                   truth,
employment and , consequently, it does not fall within the
exception of Article 48 ( 4 ).                                          — its assessment of the standard of proof required in order
                                                                            to establish a disciplinary offence : the contested
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 II, p . 475 .
                                                                            judgment in effect denies the disciplinary authorities the
                                                                            possibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a
                                                                            consistent body of relevant evidence obtained after a
                                                                            rigorously conducted disciplinary inquiry .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 22 .
Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95
between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                     European Communities                               Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
                        ( Case C-188/96 P                               court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Rosalinda Marchionne
                           ( 96/C 210/22 )
                                                                                ( Case C-189/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/23 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 199 6
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities                  European Communities by an order of the Pretura
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
Communities on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                     Tivoli Division, of 20 March 1996 , which was received at
European Communities, represented by A. M. Alves Vieira                 the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
and D. Waelbroeck , with an address for service in                      in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its                 on questions which are the same as those in Joined Cases
Legal Service, Wagner Centre .                                          C-58/95 and others ( M.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— set aside the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by
    the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
    T-40/95 ('), Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the
    European Communities, and
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
— make an appropriate ruling as to costs .                              court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Amerigo Alari
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-190/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/24 )
Breach of Community law in that the contested judgment
errs in :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— its interpretation of the scope of the obligation to state            European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    reasons ,
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
                                                                        Tivoli Division, of 3 April 1996 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
— its legal assessment of the factors regarded by the
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari on questions
    appointing authority as aggravating by considering that
                                                                        which are the same as those in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
    they did not justify the adoption of a disciplinary                 others ( M.
    measure more severe than that recommended by the
    Disciplinary Board : the Court of First Instance was
    wrong in not considering the applicant's attitude to be             (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
    an aggravating factor when, instead of producing a
    plausible defence, he merely denied , against all the


title: Case T-497/10: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2013 — Divandari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/20

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2013 — Divandari v Council
   (Case T-497/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 71/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ali Divandari (Teheran, Iran) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, and M. Brindle QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ali Divandari.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Huy on the judgment of the Tribunal Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before that court in the case of Ministère public against J. C. Arblade and Arblade et Fils SARL (Case C-369/96)

text:
No C 9/ 14            [ EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11 . 1 . 97
           is required from the competent energy                                 entire duration of the market-sharing agreement
           supervisory authority in order to commence                            or only for a shorter transitional period ? If so,
           supply operations ( paragraph 5 of the EnWG ),                        what are the criteria for assessment ?
           and from a certain threshold the construction,
           renewal, extension or closure of energy                     (!) OJ No C 123 , 4 . 5 . 1994 , p . 26 .
           installations belonging to the supply undertakings          (2) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962, p. 204.
           must be notified to the supervisory authority and
           may be prohibited by the latter in the public
           interest (paragraph 4 of the EnWG ). Do special
           arrangements apply to long-distance gas
           undertakings which commenced their supply
           operations before the enactment of the German               Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal
           Energiewirtschaftsgesetz and were allowed to                de Premiere Instance de Huy on the judgment of the
           continue them without being subject to the                  Tribunal Correctionnel de Huy of 29 October 1996 in the
           authorization requirement ?                                 criminal proceedings pending before that court in the case
                                                                       of Ministere public against J. C. Arblade and Arblade et
           If the provisions of German law on the energy                                              Fils SARL
           industry cannot provide support for such
                                                                                ( Case C-369/96 )
           arrangements, are there other considerations
           which justify regarding the long-distance gas                                            ( 97/C 9/24 )
           undertakings as entrusted undertakings within the
           meaning of Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and, if        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           so, what are they ?
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
     ( b) If the long-distance gas undertakings referred to            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Huy, of 29 October 1996,
           are entrusted undertakings within the meaning of            which was received at the Court Registry on 25 November
           Article 90 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty:                          1996, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                       before that court in the case of Ministere public against
           what are the criteria for interpretation of the             J. C. Arblade and Arblade et Fils SARL on the following
           further requirements pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 ),          questions :
           that is to say does the application of Article 85 ( 1 )
           of the EC Treaty to a market-sharing agreement              A. Must Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty be interpreted
           under which the undertakings divide their sales                 as meaning that they preclude a Member State from
           areas, obstruct the performance, in law or in fact,             requiring an undertaking established in another
           of the particular tasks assigned to them and, if so,            Member State and temporarily carrying out work in
           does the exemption from the rules on competition                the first State :
           contained in the EC Treaty affect the
           development of trade to such an extent as is                    1 . to keep social documents ( staff register and
           contrary to the interests of the Community ?                        individual account ), in the absence of a company
                                                                               seat in Belgium, at the Belgian residence of a legal
11 . ( a ) May undertakings, of the kind referred to, claim                    person who is to keep those documents in his
           protection of their legitimate expectations to                      capacity as agent or servant of the employer;
           ensure    continuance     of  their   market-sharing
           agreement if both the EC Commission and the                     2 . to pay to its workers the minimum remuneration
           national authorities have for decades acquiesced                    laid down in a collective labour agreement;
           in the use of such agreements ?
                                                                           3 . to keep a special staff register;
     ( b ) If no legitimate expectations have been aroused
           under ( a ) is it relevant that the national                    4 . to issue an individual record for each worker;
           authorities stated in an official report ( in this
                                                                           5 . to appoint an agent or servant responsible for
           case Bundeskartellamt Tatigkeitsbericht 1987/88 ,
           Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestags 11 /4611
                                                                               keeping the individual accounts of employees;
           p. 108 ) that it was not 'currently' expedient for              6 . to pay contributions in respect of loyalty and bad
           them to take up of their own accord possible                        weather stamps for each worker,
           infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty
           in the supply industry ?                                        where that undertaking is already subject to
     (c ) If legitimate expectations have been aroused :                   requirements which, while not identical, are at least
                                                                           comparable as regards their objective, in respect of the
           in weighing the interests of the individual and of              same workers and for the same period of activity in
           the Community, a matter on which the protection                 the State where it is established ?
           of legitimate expectations ultimately depends,
           what is to be put on the Community side of the              B. Can Articles 59 and 60 render inoperative the first
           scales ?                                                        paragraph of Article 3 of the Civil Code on Belgian
                                                                           public order legislation ?
           If legitimate expectations are acknowledged, do
           they afford protection from a prohibition for the


title: Case T-565/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/22

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
   (Case T-565/12)
   2013/C 55/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley, C. Murphy, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

               —

               Order the annulment to take effect immediately and not be suspended;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and there is no valid legal or factual basis for its designation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation

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

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)


title: Joined Cases C-325/13 P and C-326/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Appeals — Community trade mark — Word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Opposition by another proprietor of the business name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’  — Refusal of registration)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Peek & Cloppenburg KG
   (Joined Cases C-325/13 P and C-326/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Opposition by another proprietor of the business name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ - Refusal of registration))
   2014/C 315/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (represented by: P. Langue, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Peek & Cloppenburg KG (represented by: A. Renck, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case T-190/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2007 — The Sherwin-Williams Company v OHIM (TWIST & POUR) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TWIST & POUR — Absolute ground for refusal of registration — Mark devoid of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2007 — The Sherwin-Williams Company v OHIM (TWIST & POUR)
   (Case T-190/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TWIST & POUR - Absolute ground for refusal of registration - Mark devoid of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 170/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: The Sherwin-Williams Company (Cleveland, Ohio, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2005 (Case R 755/2004-2), relating to registration of the sign TWIST & POUR as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders the Sherwin-Williams Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case T-321/09: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark arraybox — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — skytron energy v OHIM (arraybox)
   (Case T-321/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark arraybox - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 80/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: skytron energy GmbH & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H.J. Omsels and C. Danziger, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2009 (Case R 1680/2008-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign arraybox as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders skytron energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-158/13: Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Iralco v Council

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/24

         Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Iralco v Council
   (Case T-158/13)
   2013/C 147/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Aluminum Co. (Iralco) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.


title: Case T-500/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — Commission v IIC (Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Repayment of the advance paid by the Community for projects financed in the domain of trans-European telecommunications networks — Forfeiture — Eligibility of the costs purportedly incurred)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — Commission v IIC
   (Case T-500/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance - Repayment of the advance paid by the Community for projects financed in the domain of trans-European telecommunications networks - Forfeiture - Eligibility of the costs purportedly incurred)
   (2007/C 155/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun, W. Wils and N. Knittlmayer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH (established in Königswinter, Germany) (represented by: E. Rott and J. Wolff, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application under Article 238 EC for an order requiring the defendant to repay part of the advance paid by the Community in implementation of two financing contracts in relation to cultural programmes.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH to pay the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum due of EUR 179 337, together with default interest at 4 % per annum as from 1 November 1998 until full payment of the sums due;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the application by IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH for suspension of enforcement of this judgment;

               4.

               Orders IIC Informations-Industrie Consulting GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


C 118/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-160/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/46)                                                    (2001/C 118/49)
By order of 27 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-160/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                         European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-46/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-128/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/47)                                                    (2001/C 118/50)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-46/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-128/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Ireland.                                    ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)]: Johann Kappel
                                                                   v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-85/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-464/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/48)                                                    (2001/C 118/51)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-85/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-464/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-341/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)
   (Case C-341/13)
   2013/C 260/44
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruz & Companhia, Lda.

      Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests apply only to relations between the European Community and the defendant in its capacity as a paying agency of Community aid, or does it also apply to relations between the defendant in its capacity as a paying agency of Community aid and the applicant in its capacity as a beneficiary of aid which is deemed to have been wrongly granted?

               2.

               If the limitation period laid down in Article 3(1) of that regulation is applicable also to relations between the paying agency of the aid and the beneficiary of the aid deemed to have been granted unduly, should that limitation period be understood as being applicable only where administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 are at issue, or also where ‘administrative measures’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that regulation are at issue — in this instance, repayment of sums wrongly received?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-434/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT — Earlier Community figurative mark ‘alpine’ — Misuse of power — Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)
   (Case T-434/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘alpine’ - Misuse of power - Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Václav Hrbek (Augustinova, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Jäger, 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: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1441/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Mr Václav Hrbek.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 1995 the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .