title: Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-443/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/7
3. Does Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty preclude a                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) of
    provision exempting the sale of wine direct from the             18 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
    vineyard from beverage duty?'                                    29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Finance Office
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                        for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the
                                                                     following questions:
                                                                     1. Do Article 73b in conjunction with Article 73d (in
                                                                         particular, Article 73d(3)) of the EC Treaty and
Reference      for    a     preliminary    ruling    by    the           Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of               88/361/EEC (1) concerning the movement of capital
10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger                        preclude the continued application of the first sentence
Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann                         of the fourth subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8 of
Schachtner,       Konrad       Sonnleitner      and     Ulrich           the 1957 Gebührengesetz (Law on Stamp Duties,
Muckenschnabel           against      the        Unabhängiger            hereinafter the GebG', in the version published in
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party:                  BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) 818/1993), which
       Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                       provides that, where a loan granted by a lender who
                                                                         neither resides in Austria nor maintains his habitual
                       (Case C-438/97)
                                                                         abode, his head office or his seat there is not recorded
                         (98/C 72/12)                                    in an instrument giving rise to liability to pay stamp
                                                                         duty, the books and records which are maintained by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the debtor in accordance with the national rules on
European        Communities        by     order      of    the           taxes and duties and in which the loan is recorded are
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, of               to be deemed to constitute the relevant document?
10 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals            2. Does the taxation of loans (in so far as they result in a
brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf                         flow of capital from one Member State to another)
Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and                     under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8
Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger                           GebG constitute arbitrary discrimination or a
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent                        concealed restriction on the free movement of capital
Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg),                          and payments within the meaning of Article 73b of
Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und                    the Treaty?
Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science and Transport) on
the following question:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 5.
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable        Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                    Spain against Commission of the European Communities
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                         (Case C-443/97)
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a                                          (98/C 72/14)
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities on 23 December 1997 by the
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de
                                                                     Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian                 E. Servais.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of
18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v.
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          Burgenland
                       (Case C-439/97)                               1. annul the Commission Guidelines of 15 October 1997
                         (98/C 72/13)                                    relating to the net financial adjustments pursuant to
                                                                         Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1); and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Austrian                    2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/8                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Appeal brought on 7 January 1998 by British Steel plc
                                                                    against the judgment delivered on 24 October 1997 by
                                                                    the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
Actionable measure                                                  of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                    T-243/94 between British Steel plc, supported by SSAB
The Kingdom of Spain challenges Commission                         Svenskt Stål AB and Det Danske Stålvalsevñrk A/S and
Guidelines' intended to help its departments to implement           the Commission of the European Communities, supported
Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. None the                 by the Council of the European Union, the Italian
less, despite the term used by the institution which drafted        Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and Ilva Laminati Piani
the contested act, the Kingdom of Spain considers that it                                        SpA
constitutes an actionable measure within the meaning of                                    (Case C-1/98 P)
Article 173 of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court
of Justice.                                                                                (98/C 72/15)
Lack of competence of the Commission
                                                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October
                                                                    1997 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 only confers              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
on the Commission the power to reduce, suspend or                   case T-243/94 between British Steel plc, supported by
cancel assistance if an operation or measure appears to             SSAB Svenskt Stål AB and Det Danske Stålvalsevñrk A/S
justify only part of the assistance allocated and if there is       and the Commission of the European Communities,
an irregularity or a significant change affecting the nature        supported by the Council of the European Union, the
or conditions of the operation or measure for which the             Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain and Ilva Laminati
Commission's approval has not been sought.                          Piani SpA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities on 7 January 1998 by British Steel
                                                                    plc, represented by Messrs Richard Plender QC and
The sole object of the power conferred by Article 24 on
                                                                    William Sibree, solicitor of the Supreme Court, with an
the Commission to reduce, suspend or cancel assistance is
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
to prevent such assistance being directed to something
                                                                    Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich.
other than that for which it was allocated. The power
conferred on the Commission was in no way intended to
serve as a means of penalising the failure of Member
States to fulfil their obligations under Article 23 of the          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Regulation.
                                                                    (i)   quash the decision of the Court of First Instance;
The Commission may not resort to its powers under
Article 24 in order to impose economic sanctions upon
Member States for failure to fulfil other provisions. The           (ii) annul Commission Decisions 94/258/ECSC (1) and
Commission only has the power to allocate and, therefore,                 94/259/ECSC (2) of 12 April 1994; and
except where there exists a specific provision conferring
upon it actual powers to impose penalties, should Member
States fail to fulfil their obligations under Article 23, the
                                                                    (iii) order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in
Commission only has available the general procedure
                                                                          the Court of Justice and in the Court of First
under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, whose only object is
                                                                          Instance.
to find that a Member State has breached Community law
and that it should bring such infringement to an end,
without involving the application of a pecuniary sanction,
save in the case of failure to comply with a judgment as            Alternatively, in case the Court of Justice should consider
provided for in Article 171 of the EC Treaty.                       that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give
                                                                    final judgment in the matter, the Appellant requests the
                                                                    Court to refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
Failure to provide a statement of reasons                           for judgment and reserve the costs.
When it adopted the guidelines' which the Kingdom of
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Spain is challenging, the Commission failed to set forth
both the reason why it took the decision to apply
economic penalties on Member States for failure to fulfil
their obligations under Article 23 of Regulation (EEC)              These proceedings raise a point which is of general
No 4253/88 and the basis on which such power to impose              importance, particularly for the Community's coal and
sanctions is based.                                                 steel industries. It may be summarised as follows.
(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, pp. 1Ð14.
                                                                    When there is in force a general Decision declaring that
                                                                    aid in any form whatsoever and whether specific or non-
                                                                    specific which Member States might grant to their steel


title: Order of the Court of 24 May 2016 in Case E-2/16 — Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Preliminary objection to admissibility — Refusal to commence infringement proceedings — Directive 2002/47/EC — Challengeable measures — Time limit — Admissibility)

text:
               2.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/31

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 24 May 2016
   in Case E-2/16
   Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Preliminary objection to admissibility — Refusal to commence infringement proceedings — Directive 2002/47/EC — Challengeable measures — Time limit — Admissibility)
   (2017/C 66/11)
   In Case E-2/16, Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Article 36(2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015 on financial collateral arrangements in Liechtenstein, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave order of 24 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant is to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-474/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Fercal Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/47

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Fercal Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM
   (Case T-474/09)
   2010/C 63/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Ltda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: A. Rodrigues, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jacson of Scandinavia AB (Vollsjö, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (O.H.I.M.) of 18 August 2009 in Case R 1253/2008-2 and, in consequence, maintenance in the register of Community trade mark No 1 077 858‘JACKSON SHOES’

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: JACKSON SHOES

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Swedish name mark ‘JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for declaration of invalidity granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark ‘JACKSON SHOES’ and the trade mark ‘JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB’.
   Although there are graphic and phonetic similarities between the names JACKSON and JACSON, the signs must be compared by taking them in their entirety: ‘JACKSON SHOES’/‘JACSON OF SCANDINAVIA AB’.
   It is impossible to recognise (merely on the basis of a Swedish business name) an exclusive right in all the Member States of the European Union to use a name commonly used in many other countries of the Union by thousands of people and by other undertakings, thus constituting a sign of little distinctive character. In consequence, third parties cannot be prevented from again using that sign or another sign resembling it in combination with other elements.
   In addition, an average consumer will easily realise that these are different kinds of distinctive signs: one consists of a name mark and the other of a business name, in this case with the addition of the letters AB.


title: Composition of the Grand Chamber

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/41

         Composition of the Grand Chamber
   (2007/C 269/71)
   On 19 September 2007, the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 25 September 2007 to 31 August 2010 the 13 Judges of whom the Grand Chamber is composed shall be the President of the Court, the seven Presidents of those Chambers not entrusted with the case, and the Judges of the Chamber, Extended Composition, which would have had to sit in the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges.


title: Case T-253/03: Action brought on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —      The procedure provided for in Article 35 of Directive
                                                                               2001/82 can only affect and have an impact on the
                                                                               national marketing authorisation directly concerned by
—     annul the contested Decision requesting the Member                       it.
      States to suspend marketing authorizations for products
      containing benzathine penicillin under the referral pro-          —      In the present case there should not be ‘Community
      cedure of Article 35 of Directive 2001/82;                               interest’ justifying a referral.
—     alternatively declare the contested Decision non-existant;        (1 ) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
                                                                             6 November 2001, on the Community code relating to veterinary
                                                                             national products (OJ L 311, of 28 November 2001, p. 1),
                                                                             which consolidates and replaces Council Directive 81/851/EEC of
—     order the Defendant to bear the costs.                                 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                             Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317
                                                                             of 6 November 1981, p. 1, and the subsequent modifications).
                                                                        (2 ) OJ C 109, of 4.5.2002, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in the present case are all companies holding            Action brought on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals
national marketing authorisations issued by national com-               Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the Commission of
petent authorities for a veterinary medicinal product contain-                              the European Communities
ing the pharmacologically active substance ‘bezathine penicil-
lin’. That substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary                                    (Case T-253/03)
injectable medicinal products for food producing animals.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/39)
The present application has been lodged against the Decision                                 (Language of the case: English)
of the Commission of 22 April 2003, ordering a suspension of
the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products
containing the substance benzathine penicillin on the basis of
Article 35 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1) (former Article 20 of            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 81/851) in the framework of a so-called ‘Community            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
interest referral procedure’ initiated by the Irish authorities.        European Communities on 4 July 2003 by Akzo Nobel
The applicants in the present case introduced an action                 Chemicals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), and Akcros Chemi-
for annulment against the Decision introducing the referral             cals Ltd, Surrey, (United Kingdom), represented by C. Swaak
procedure on 25 January 2002. The application, which is still           and R. Mollica, lawyers.
pending, was registered under Roll No T-19/02 ( 2).
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Rejection
In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:                   Decision;
                                                                        —      annul, under Article 231 EC, the Rejection Decision;
—     The Commission cannot oblige the Member States to
      suspend national marketing authorisations of products             —      order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the
      containing benzathine penicillin under the procedure                     present proceedings.
      contained in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 as this
      Article does not provide the Commission with the power
      to adopt decisions harmonising national marketing auth-
      orisations.                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Even if one were to accept that the procedure contained           In February 2003, representatives of the Commission perfor-
      in Article 35 of Directive 2001/82 could lead to a binding        med an investigation on the basis of Article 14(3) of Regulation
      decision of the Commission, such procedure would at               17/62 with regard to the applicants in Eccles, Manchester. In
      most apply to veterinary medicinal products authorised            the course of the investigation, the Commission reviewed,
      under the mutual recognition procedure.                           took copies of and seized several documents ( 1).
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 239/21
Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the
applicants, the seizure and handling of these documents
                                                                            —     decide that the mark ‘INTERNET PHOTONICS’ is eligible
violate the general principle of legal professional privilege as
                                                                                for registration as a community trade mark since it does
recognized under European Community Law.
                                                                                comply with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1);
In Commission Decision C(2003)1533 regarding a claim of
legal privilege in the context of an investigation pursuant to              —     annul the decision dated the 13th May 2003 by the
Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 in Case No COMP/                        Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
E-1/38.589 the Commission firstly rejected the applicants’                        in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concern-
request to return or destroy all copies of the documents in                       ing case Number R 765/2002-2;
dispute and secondly, indicated it will proceed to join all
documents in dispute to the Commission’s file.
                                                                            —     allow the application for the mark to be remitted to the
                                                                                Examination Division of the Office for further consider-
                                                                                ation of eligibility for registration under Article 7(1)(c)
With the present application, the applicants seek the review of                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 ( 1) having regard to the
the legality and the annulment of this Decision. The applicants                   distinctive character of the mark as a whole, or alterna-
submit that the Commission has committed an infringement                          tively to remit the application for the mark for a decision
of the Treaty and of general principles of Community law and                      by a Board of Appeal of the Office as to whether the
has violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the Courts of                     mark is eligible for registration as a community trade
Justice of the European Communities.                                              mark under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1) on the original appeal from the examiner.
The applicants contend that the Commission has violated the
principle of legal professional privilege by violating the                  —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
procedures relating to the application of this principle as set                   to pay the costs.
out by case law, by its unjustified denial of legal professional
privilege and by violating the applicants’ fundamental rights
(such as the right to privacy) which form the basis of the
aforementioned principle.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) The applicants have lodged an application for the annulment of
     Commission Decision C(2003) 559/4 in as far as it has been             The trade mark con-            The word mark ‘INTERNET PHO-
     interpreted as legitimating the Commission’s action of seizing,        cerned:                        TONICS’          —        application
     reviewing and reading of documents allegedly covered by legal                                         No 002275600
     professional privilege (Case T-125/03, OJ [2003] C 146 of
     21.6.2003, p. 42).
                                                                            Goods or service con-          Goods and services in Classes 9,
                                                                            cerned:                        37, 42 (computer software and
                                                                                hardware etc.)
                                                                            Decision          contested    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                            before the Board of            examiner
                                                                            Appeal:
Action brought on 15 July 2003 by Internet Photonics,
Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal
           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                          Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              —      misapplication              of
                           (Case T-257/03)                                                                        Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                           (2003/C 239/40)
                                                                                —      misapplication              of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 July 2003 by Internet Photonics,
Inc., New Jersey, USA, represented by M. Chapple, Barrister.


title: Joined Cases C-553/10 P and C-554/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Wendel Investissement SA, Lagardère SCA and Lagardère SCA v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, European Commission, Wendel Investissement SA (Appeals — Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market — Annulment of the decision to approve an investment company as the purchaser of the assets sold — Significance of a trustee’s possible lack of independence)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, Wendel Investissement SA, Lagardère SCA and Lagardère SCA v Éditions Odile Jacob SAS, European Commission, Wendel Investissement SA
   (Joined Cases C-553/10 P and C-554/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market - Annulment of the decision to approve an investment company as the purchaser of the assets sold - Significance of a trustee’s possible lack of independence)
   2013/C 9/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys and L. Eskenazi, avocats), Wendel Investissement SA (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon and C. Baldon, avocats), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, avocats), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision D(2004)203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) — Significance of the trustee’s possible lack of independence — Distortion of the facts — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;

               3.

               Orders Wendel Investissement SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case C-382/04: Action brought on 6 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/24

         Action brought on 6 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-382/04)
   (2004/C 262/44)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 amending Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 23 February 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 53, of 23.2.2002, p. 20.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreements — Seamless steel tubes market — Duration of the infringement — Fines)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Agreements - Seamless steel tubes market - Duration of the infringement - Fines)
   (2004/C 239/25)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-48/00: Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by J. Pheasant and M. Readings, solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially M. Erhart and B. Doherty, then M. Erhart and A. Whelan) — application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1), or, alternatively, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) in so far as it establishes the existence of the infringement found in that article against the applicant as pre-dating 1 January 1991;

               2.

               Sets the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 11,700,000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case C-461/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB (Copyright and related rights — Processing of data by internet — Infringement of an exclusive right — Audio books made available via an FTP server via internet by an IP address supplied by an internet service provider — Injunction issued against the internet service provider ordering it to provide the name and address of the user of the IP address)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB
   (Case C-461/10) (1)

   (Copyright and related rights - Processing of data by internet - Infringement of an exclusive right - Audio books made available via an FTP server via internet by an IP address supplied by an internet service provider - Injunction issued against the internet service provider ordering it to provide the name and address of the user of the IP address)
   2012/C 165/07
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget AB, Storyside AB

      Defendant: Perfect Communication Sweden AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Intellectual property — Exclusive right held by publishing companies to make audio books available to the public — Alleged infringement of that right in that those audio books were made accessible via an FTP (File transfer protocol) server, an internet file-sharing program — Order that the internet service provider which provides the internet link to the server by allocating it an IP address supply to the copyright owner information regarding the names and addresses of persons registered as users of that IP address during a given period

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation based on Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights which, in order to identify an internet subscriber or user, permits an internet service provider in civil proceedings to be ordered to give a copyright holder or its representative information on the subscriber to whom the internet service provider provided an IP address which was allegedly used in an infringement, since that legislation does not fall within the material scope of Directive 2006/24;
   It is irrelevant to the main proceedings that the Member State concerned has not yet transposed Directive 2006/24, despite the period for doing so having expired;
   Directives 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) and 2004/48 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings insofar as that legislation enables the national court seised of an application for an order for disclosure of personal data, made by a person who is entitled to act, to weigh the conflicting interests involved, on the basis of the facts of each case and taking due account of the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-290/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)

text:
6.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     impact assessment being carried out, it appears when
                                                                                approval of reserved matters is sought that the project
Annul or vary Commission Decision C(2003) 1539 in connec-                       may have significant effects on the environment by virtue
tion with the exclusion from Community financing of certain                     inter alia of its nature, size or location (article 2(1) of the
expenditure by the Member States in the context of the EAGGF                    Directive)?
— Guarantee section, in regard to the chapter concerning
financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the            (3) In circumstances where:
sector of arable cultivation for the financial years 2000 and
2001.
                                                                                (a)   national planning law provides for the grant of
                                                                                outline planning permission at an initial stage of the
                                                                                planning process and requires consideration by the
                                                                                competent authority at that stage as to whether an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                environmental impact assessment is required for
                                                                                purposes of the Directive; and
—     Misinterpretation of provisions;
—     Misappraisal of factual circumstances;                                    (b) the competent authority then determines that it is
                                                                                unnecessary to carry out an environmental impact
                                                                                assessment and grants outline planning permission
—     Defective statement of reasons;
                                                                                subject to conditions reserving specified matters for
                                                                                later approval; and
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c)
      of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 in conjunction with
      Document VI/5330/97;                                                      (c)   that decision can then be challenged in the national
                                                                                courts;
—     Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 6 and 7
      of Regulation No 3508/92.                                                 may national law, consistently with the Directive, pre-
                                                                                clude a competent authority from requiring that an
                                                                                environmental impact assessment be carried out at a later
                                                                                stage of the planning process?
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
                                                                              of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                      environment (OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40).
by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of
Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte
                       Diane Barker (FC)
                        (Case C-290/03)
                        (2003/C 213/29)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                         Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
                                                                         that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 30 June 2003, which was received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina                                      (Case C-291/03)
and London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)
on the following questions:
                                                                                (2003/C 213/30)
(1) Is identification of ‘the decision of the competent auth-
      ority or authorities which entitles the developer to
      proceed with the project’ (article 1(2) of Directive 85/
      337/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)) exclusively a matter for the
      national court applying national law?                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
(2) Does the Directive require an environmental impact                   Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 30 June 2003,
      assessment to be carried out if, following the grant of            which was received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a
      outline planning permission subject to conditions that             preliminary ruling in the case of MyTravel plc and Com-
      reserved matters be approved, without an environmental             missioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2003 in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parliament (Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden of proof)

text:
C 213/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                           of 9 July 2003                                  in Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-162/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Colours — Combination of
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           orange and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinc-
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           tive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier                                              (2003/C 213/62)
figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVER-                                           (Language of the case: German)
LY HILLS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b)
                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           In Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Waiblingen (Germany), represented by S. Völker and A. Klett,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2003/C 213/61)                                  the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                           Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the decision of the First Board of
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2001 (Case R 477/2000-
                                                                           1), refusing registration of a combination of the colours orange
                                                                           and grey as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                           P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor,
                                                                           Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003 in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-162/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v              (1) Dismisses the action.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo                   (2) Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Carrillo), the other party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Giorgio Beverly Hills,             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 348.
Inc., established in Santa Monica, California (United States of
America): Action brought against the decision of the First
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2001
(Case R 122/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar has given a
judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                of 8 July 2003
                                                                           in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of
                                                                           residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                           of proof)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/63)
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud, former official of the
                                                                           European Parliament, residing in Nice (France), represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/33
L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,               1.     dismissed the application;
against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and
G. Knudsen) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 refusing to consider that                2.     ordered each party to bear its own costs.
the applicant’s place of residence is in Nice and apply the
weighting for France to her retirement pension from 1 January
2000 and, second, of the decision of the Parliament of                     (1 ) OJ No C 144 of 15.6.2002.
6 December 2001 expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint
— the Court of First Instance (single judge: A.W.H. Meij);
I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003 in
which it:
1.     Annuls the decision of the Parliament of 27 June 2001 in so
       far as it applies to the applicant’s pension the weighting
       applicable to Luxembourg for the whole of the year 2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
( 1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.
                                                                           in Case T-119/02: Royal Philips Electronics NV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Com-
                                                                           mitments in the course of the first phase of examination —
                                                                           Serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market
                                                                                — Partial referral to national authorities)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 213/65)
                         of 19 June 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt v European Central
                               Bank (1)
(Officials — Employee of the European Central Bank —                       In Case T-119/02, Royal Philips Electronics NV, established at
                        Written reprimand)                                 Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk
                                                                           and N.G. Cronstedt, lawyers, supported by De –Longhi SpA,
                                                                           established in Treviso (Italy), represented by M. Merola,
                         (2003/C 213/64)                                   I. van Schendel, G. Crichlow and D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Superti,
                                                                           K. Wiedner and J.E. Flynn), supported by SEB SA, established in
                    (Language of the case: German)                         Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot and S. Hautbourg,
                                                                           lawyers, and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                           and F. Million): Application for annulment of, first, the
                                                                           Commission’s decision SG(2002) D/228078 of 8 January
                                                                           2002, based on Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of Regulation
In Case T-78/02: Stephan-Harald Voigt, member of staff of                  No 4064/89 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European
the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am Main                   Economic Area, not to oppose the concentration between SEB
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer, against the                  and Moulinex and to declare it compatible with the common
European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot and T. Gilliams,                 market and with the Agreement on the European Economic
assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application for annul-                 Area, subject to compliance with the proposed commitments
ment of the decision of 1 March 2002, taken by Mr Noyer,                   (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex) and, second, the
Vice President of the European Central Bank, to issue a written            Commission’s decision C(2002)38, of 8 January 2002, adopted
reprimand to the applicant — the Court of First Instance                   on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi              referring part of the examination of that concentration to the
and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a                 French authorities, the Court of First Instance(Third Chamber),
judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it:                                     composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 July 2003 in Case C-39/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Artegodan GmbH and Others (Appeal — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation — Competence of the Commission — Conditions for withdrawal)

text:
C 226/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                20.9.2003
      —    third, the compensation does not exceed what is necessary to      Marion Roussel Ltd, established in Denham (United Kingdom),
           cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the        Hoechst Marion Roussel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium),
           public service obligations, taking into account the relevant      Marion Merrell SA, established in Puteaux (France), Marion
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those            Merrell SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Sanova Pharma
           obligations;                                                      GmbH, established in Vienna (Austria), Temmler Pharma GmbH
                                                                             & Co.KG, established in Marburg (Germany), Schuck GmbH,
      —    fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public        established in Schwaig (Germany), Laboratoires Roussell Lda,
           service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement         established in Mem Martins (Portugal), Laboratoires Roussell
           procedure, the level of compensation needed has been deter-       Diamant SARL, established in Puteaux, Roussel Iberica SA,
           mined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a            established in Barcelona, (represented by B. Sträter and
           typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with        M. Ambrosius), Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established in
           means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary         Vienna, (represented by K. Grigkar), Cambridge Healthcare
           public service requirements, would have incurred in dischar-      Supplies Ltd, established in Rackhearth (United Kingdom),
           ging those obligations, taking into account the relevant          (represented by M. D. Vaughan, QC, K. Bacon, barrister, and
           receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the              S. Davis, solicitor), and Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Trenker
           obligations.                                                      SA, established in Brussels, (represented by L. Defalque and
                                                                             X. Leurquin), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.
3.   Article 77 of the EC Treaty (now Article 73 EC) cannot be
                                                                             A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.
     applied to public subsidies which compensate for the additional
                                                                             O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
     costs incurred in discharging public service obligations without
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
     taking into account Regulation No 1191/69, as amended by
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M. Múgica
     Regulation No 1893/91.
                                                                             Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                             a judgment on 24 July 2003, in which it:
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.                                                   1.   Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                                                                                costs of these proceedings and those relating to the application for
                                                                                interim relief.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
                           of 24 July 2003
in Case C-39/03 P: Commission of the European
      Communities v Artegodan GmbH and Others (1)
(Appeal — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC —                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
Medicinal products for human use — Anorectics: amfepra-
mone, clobenzorex,            fenproporex,      norpseudoephedrine,                                     (First Chamber)
phentermine — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation —
Competence of the Commission — Conditions for withdrawal)                                               of 24 July 2003
                                                                             in Case C-166/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (2003/C 226/02)                                   the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal): Daniel
                                                                             Fernando Messejana Viegas v Companhia de Seguros
                                                                                Zurich SA, Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal SA (1)
        (Languages of the case: German, English and French)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which
                                                                             may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Second
                                                                             Directive 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil
In Case C-39/03 P, Commission of the European Communities,                   liability in respect of motor vehicles — Types of civil
(Agents: R. B. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, assisted by                                   liability — Minimum amounts of cover)
B. Wägenbaur): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,                                             (2003/C 226/03)
Extended Composition) of 26 November 2002 in Joined Cases
T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00                                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
and T-141/00 Artegodan and Others v Commission [2002]
ECR II-4945, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
other parties to the proceedings being: Artegodan GmbH,                                            the European Court Reports)
established in Lüchow (Germany), (represented by U. Doepner),
Bruno Farmaceutici SpA, established in Rome (Italy), Essential               In Case C-166/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United Kingdom), Hoechst               by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Alcácer do Sal (Portugal)


title: Case C-272/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 8 June 2015 — Swiss International Air Lines AG v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 8 June 2015 — Swiss International Air Lines AG v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency
   (Case C-272/15)
   (2015/C 279/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

      Defendants: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Decision 377/2013/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2013 (‘the Decision’) infringe the general EU principle of equal treatment insofar as it establishes a moratorium on the requirements to surrender emissions allowances imposed by Directive 2003/87/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 (as amended by various instruments, including Directive 2008/101/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008) in respect of flights between EEA states and almost all non-EEA states, but does not extend that moratorium to flights between EEA states and Switzerland?

               2.

               If so, what remedy must be provided to a claimant in the position of Swiss International Airlines AG, which has surrendered emissions allowances in respect of flights that took place during 2012 between EEA states and Switzerland, to restore that claimant to the position it would have been in, but for the exclusion from the moratorium of flights between EEA states and Switzerland? In particular:

                           a)

                           Must the register be rectified to reflect the lesser number of allowances that such a claimant would have been required to surrender if flights to or from Switzerland had been included in the moratorium?

                           b)

                           If so, what (if any) action must the national competent authority and/or the national court take to procure that the additional allowances surrendered are returned to such a claimant?

                           c)

                           Does such a claimant has the right to claim damages under Article 340 of the TFEU against the European Parliament and the Council for any loss that it has suffered by reason of having surrendered additional allowances as a result of the Decision?

                           d)

                           Must the claimant be granted some other form of relief, and if so what relief?

      (1)  Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2013 derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community OJ L 113, p. 1.

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 275, p. 32.

      (3)  Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 8, p. 3.


title: Case C-531/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 April 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 April 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-531/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/63
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-122/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 14 March 2014  — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investments v Ángel Luis Egea Torregrosa

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena (Spain) lodged on 14 March 2014 — Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investments v Ángel Luis Egea Torregrosa
   (Case C-122/14)
   2014/C 159/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 5 de Cartagena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aktiv Kapital Portfolio Investments

      Defendant: Ángel Luis Egea Torregrosa

      Question referred

   Must Directive 93/13 (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law like the Spanish legislation that does not allow the court to review of its own motion in limine litis, in the subsequent enforcement procedure, the judicial enforceable instrument — an order made by the court bringing the order-for-payment proceedings to an end in the absence of any objections — in order to ascertain whether there are unfair terms in the contract that served as a basis for the issue of that decree whose enforcement is sought, because national law considers the matter to be res judicata — Articles 551 and 552 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [Code of Civil Procedure] in conjunction with Article 816(2) thereof?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-688/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2014  — Airport Handling v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary company responsible for management services — Subsidiary company put into liquidation — Setting up of a new company responsible for management services — Commission decision to initiate the State aid formal investigation procedure in order to examine whether there is an economic continuity between the two companies — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/35

         Order of the President of the General Court of 28 November 2014 — Airport Handling v Commission
   (Case T-688/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Obligation to recover aid granted by the public operator of an airport to a subsidiary company responsible for management services - Subsidiary company put into liquidation - Setting up of a new company responsible for management services - Commission decision to initiate the State aid formal investigation procedure in order to examine whether there is an economic continuity between the two companies - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 026/44)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Airport Handling SpA (Somma Lombardo, Italy) (represented by: R. Cafari Panico and F. Scarpellini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures seeking, in essence, suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C (2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the setting up of the company Airport Handling (SA.21420 (2014/NN) — Italy — Setting up of Airport Handling).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The Order of 29 September 2014 delivered in Case T-688/14 R is cancelled.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-629/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Molda v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures presented by Germany — Clause relating to extremely difficult cases — Freedom to a professional activity and to conduct a business — Right to property — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Molda v Commission
      (Case T-629/13) (1)

      ((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures presented by Germany - Clause relating to extremely difficult cases - Freedom to a professional activity and to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/59)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Molda AG (Dahlenburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Y. Vollmer, C. Telschow and A. Schulze, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27) in so far as Article 1(1) thereof rejects granting the applicant the supplementary quotas requested for the third trading period of the 2013 to 2020 emissions trading on the basis of the hardship clause under Paragraph 9(5) of the Treibhausgas-Emissionshandelsgesetz (German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading) of 21 July 2011.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Molda AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-142/07: Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/40

         Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic v Commission
   (Case T-142/07)
   (2007/C 140/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: General Technic Sàrl (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Nosbusch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul on the basis of Article 230 EC the decision adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators, in so far as it concerns GT;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the fine imposed on it by that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant is seeking the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and relating to the manipulation of calls for tenders, market-sharing, price-fixing, the award of projects and sales contracts, the installation, maintenance and modernisation of machinery and the exchange of information, in so far as it concerns the applicant. In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong to find it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, a member of the cartel. It claims that the Commission was mistaken about the nature and extent of its shareholding in the share capital of its subsidiary in so far as the applicant is a purely financial company which does not carry out any trade of its own and that its shareholding in the subsidiary is a minority shareholding which does not exceed what is necessary for the protection of its financial interests. The applicant maintains also that the Commission has not stated to the requisite legal standard its reasons for finding that the applicant was involved in the cartel in question, in contrast to the personal role played by its shareholder, in his capacity as managing associate of the subsidiary.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 July 1997 in Case T-123/95: B v. European Parliament (Temporary staff - Engagement on the basis of Article 2 (b) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities - Termination of employment pursuant to Article 47 (2) (a) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Compliance with a properly introduced internal procedure - Statement of reasons for the decision terminating the employment)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/31
Group of the European Parliament, residing at                        Lorenz) — application for annulment of the decision of
Gottmadingen ( Germany ), represented by Lucas Vogel and             the Parliament of 28 November 1995 rejecting a request
Gisele Stépanian, both of the Brussels Bar, and, at the              by the applicant for the assignment to her of non-active
hearing, by Beatrice Gribomont, of the Brussels Bar, with            status within the meaning of Article 41 of the Staff
an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of              Regulations of officials of the European Communities —
Christian Kremer, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the                the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Arnaldo              R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Pinto ) — application for the annulment of the decision of           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July
the European Parliament refusing to pay the applicant Bfrs           1997, in which it:
124 120 by way of compensation for 19,5 days of leave
allegedly not taken at the time of his departure, following
the termination of his contract as a member of the                   1 . dismisses the application;
temporary staff — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President                2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     (') OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 .
11 July 1997, in which it:
1 . annuls the Parliament's decision of 26 February 1996
     in so far as it considers that the applicant's absence
     during the period between 14 and 23 September 1994
     was unauthorized;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 July 1997
2 . orders the Parliament to pay Mr Schoch compensation
     corresponding to nine days of leave not taken, the                      in Case T- 123/95 : B v. European Parliament (^
     amount to be determined in accordance with the
                                                                     (Temporary staff — Engagement on the basis of
     second paragraph of Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff           Article 2 (b) of the Conditions of Employment of other
     Regulations. Interest on arrears is to be paid in respect       servants of the European Communities — Termination of
     of that sum at the rate of 8% per annum as from                 employment pursuant to Article 47 (2) (a) of the
     8 March 1 996 until the date of actual payment;                 Conditions of Employment of other servants — Breach of
                                                                     essential procedural requirements — Compliance with a
3 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                      properly introduced internal procedure — Statement of
                                                                          reasons for the decision terminating the employment)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/69 )
4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-123/95 : B, a former member of the temporary
                                                                     staff of the European Parliament, residing at Messina
                                                                     ( Italy), represented by Jean Noel Louis, of the Brussels
                                                                     Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the Reggio di Calabria Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
                          of 11 July 1997                            European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
                                                                     Caiola ) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-108/96:           Mireille Cesarotto v.    European        terminating the applicant's contract of employment and
                           Parliament (M
                                                                     for compensation for the various types of damage
(Officials — Article 41 of the Staff Regulations — Action            allegedly suffered by him as a result of such termination
for annulment of a decision rejecting a request for                  — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed
               assignment of non-active status)                      of: A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                                                                     Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                            97/C 252/68 )                            has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-108/96 : Mireille Cesaratto, an official of the            2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg                (') OJ No C 229, 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Gaston Vogel, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v.
European Parliament ( Agents: Manfred Peter and Norbert


title: Case T-305/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2014  — SACE and Sace BT v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Capital injections in favour of an insurance company by its public holding company — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/60

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — SACE and Sace BT v Commission
   (Case T-305/13 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Capital injections in favour of an insurance company by its public holding company - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing up of interests))
   2014/C 315/100
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Servizi assicurativi del commercio estero SpA (SACE SpA) (Rome, Italy) and Sace BT SpA (Rome) (represented by: M. Siragusa et G. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application seeking the suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C (2013) 1501 final of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (2011/C) (ex NN 41/2010) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Order of 28 February 2014 in Case T-305/13 R is cancelled.

               2.

               The operation of Article 5 of Commission Decision C (2013) 1501 final of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (2011/C) (ex NN 41/2010) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A. is suspended in so far as the Italian authorities are obliged to recover from that company an amount in excess of EUR [confidential].

               3.

               Costs are reserved.