title: Case C-304/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Concept of extraction of the contents of a database)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
   (Case C-304/07) (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Sui generis right - Concept of ‘extraction’ of the contents of a database)
   (2008/C 301/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

      Defendant: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20) — Adoption of data from a protected database and their incorporation in a different database on the basis of individual assessments following a close examination of those data, without any copying being carried out — Whether such a data adoption and incorporation operation constitutes ‘extraction’ within the meaning of Directive 96/9/EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The transfer of material from a protected database to another database following an on-screen consultation of the first database and an individual assessment of the material contained in that first database is capable of constituting an ‘extraction’, within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 96/9 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, to the extent that — which it is for the referring court to ascertain — that operation amounts to the transfer of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of the protected database, or to transfers of insubstantial parts which, by their repeated or systematic nature, would have resulted in the reconstruction of a substantial part of those contents.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Action brought on 10 November 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-350/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 351 /9
         prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( ) or                 ( a ) is the specific object of the rights attaching to a
         any other Community legislation ?                                               trade-mark to be regarded as including the power
                                                                                conferred on the proprietor of a trade-mark under
(') Charges on milk products at the marketing stage, whether of                          national law to oppose , with regard to alcoholic drinks
       domestic origin or imported , intended for public consumption ,                   manufactured by him, the removal by a third party of
        levied by Iroma .                                                                labels affixed by the proprietor on bottles and on the
( 2 ) Council Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .                                packaging containing them, and bearing his mark, after
n oi No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 23 .                                                the drinks have been placed by him on the Community
                                                                                market in that packaging, and the subsequent
                                                                                re-application of those labels by that third party or their
                                                                                replacement by similar labels, without thereby in some
                                                                                way damaging the original condition of the product ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal                       ( b ) In so far as the labels are replaced by other similar
Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by                                    labels, is the position different where the third party
judgment of that court of 19 October 1995 in the case of                                 omits the indication ' pure ' appearing on the original
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. against Ministerio                                 labels and/or, as the case may be, replaces the
                       Publico and Fazenda Publica                                       importer's name with another name ?
                              ( Case C-348/95 )
                                  ( 95/C 351 /14 )                                ( c ) If question ( a ) falls to be answered in the affirmative ,
                                                                                but the proprietor of the trade-mark avails himself of
                                                                                the power referred to in that question in order to
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  prevent the third party from removing the
 European Communities by judgment of the Supremo                                          identification marks which the trade-mark proprietor
Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )                                 has affixed on or underneath the labels in order to
 ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 19 October 1995 ,                                enable the trade-mark proprietor to detect shortfalls
 which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November                                 within his sales organization and thus to combat
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de                                parallel trade in his products , must such an exercise of
 Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda . against Ministerio Publico and                               the trade-mark right be regarded as a 'disguised
 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :                                             restriction on trade between Member States ' aimed at
                                                                                achieving an artificial compartmentalization of the
  1 . having regard to the facts deemed to have been proven in                            markets ?
         the present judgment and the applicable Community
          legislation , are the goods in question ( cheese ) (') to be             ( d ) To what extent is the answer to . question ( c ) affected
         classified under subheading 0406 90 1 1 of the Common                            where the trade-mark proprietor has affixed those
          Customs Tariff ( CCT ) nomenclature ( 2 )?                                      identification marks either pursuant to a legal
                                                                                obligation or voluntarily , but in any event with a view
 2 . If not, under which tariff heading should they be                                    to making a 'product recall ' possible and/or in order to
          classified ?                                                                    limit his product liability and/or to combat
                                                                                counterfeiting, or, as the case may be , solely in order to
  (') As described in footnote 2 of the information notice for Case                       combat parallel trade ?
         C- 164/95 , published in OJ No C 189 of 22 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 345 of 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                Action brought on 10 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                                                    Luxembourg
  Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 3 November                                                       (Case C-350/95 )
   1995 in the case of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine                                                ( 95/C 351 / 16 )
                           & Son Ltd and Others
                                ( Case C-349/95 )                                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                    ( 95/C 351 / 15 )                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities on 10 November 1995 by the Commission of
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the European Communities , represented by Dimitrios
   European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                            Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
   Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
   3 November 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   on 13 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
   of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd on the                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   following questions :                                                            the Court should :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 / 10            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 12 . 95
( 1 ) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       to adopt, alternatively, to communicate to the                      Justice, Queen 's Bench Division, Commercial Court, by
       Commission, all of the laws, regulations and                        order of that court of 31 October 1995 , in the case of The
       administrative measures necessary in order to comply                Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
       with Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on                         ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others
       the implementation of the Agreement between the                                                  Case C-354/95 )
       European Economic Community and the Swiss
       Confederation concerning direct insurance other than                                              ( 95/C 351 / 18 )
       life assurance ( 1 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
       the said Directive;                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
( 2 ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                       Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court of
       costs .                                                             31 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                           on 20 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        of The Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and
                                                                           Food , ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others, on the
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                           following questions :
Paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
necessary for the implementation of such directives within                 ( 1 ) are Article 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question                     ( EEC) No 3887/92 0 of 23 December 1992 laying
expired on 4 July 1993 but the Grand Duchy of                                      down detailed rules for applying the integrated
Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures .                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes ( prior to the entry into force
(') Of No L 205 , 27 . 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .                                         of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 (2 )) of 6 July 19 95
                                                                                amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 laying
                                                                                down detailed rules for applying the integrated
                                                                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes to be construed as requiring
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                            that all area related payments be refused to farmers
Commerce, Pontoise, by judgment of that court of                                   whose set aside land actually determined is found to be
3 October 1 995 in the case of Phytheron International SA                          less than that declared in an aid application when the
                        v. Jean Bourdon SA                                         difference is more than 20 % but when no false
                             Case C-352/95 )                                       intention or serious negligence has been found ?
                              ( 95/C 351 /1 7 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     ( 2 ) Are Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                              ( EEC ) No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of
 Commerce ( Commercial Court ), Pontoise, of 3 October                             Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed as
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                requiring that all beef premiums be refused to farmers
 15 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        whose forage area actually determined is found to be
Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA on the                               less than that declared in an area aid application when
 following questions :                                                             the difference is more than 20% , but when no false
                                                                                intention or serious negligence has been found ?
 1 . can a product which is covered by a protected trade
      mark and which is lawfully acquired by a trader in
      Member State A in Member State B, where it is approved                ( 3 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'yes'» are
      and marketed under the same trade mark , be lawfully                         Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
      imported from Member State B and marketed in                                 No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      Member State A when the product in question :                                 ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) invalid , wholly or in part, by reason
                                                                                of breach of any principle of Community law,
      — is a genuine product which has not undergone any
                                                                                particularly legal certainty, non-discrimination and/or
           processing,
                                                                                proportionality ?
      — has not undergone any alteration in packaging, save
           for the addition on the label of a number of
           statements designed to comply with the legislative               ( 4 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'no', how are
           requirements of Member State A, and                                      Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      — is also approved in Member State A ?                                        ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed ?
 2 . Does a prohibition based on the trade mark legislation
      of Member State A infringe Article 30 of the EC
                                                                             ( 5 ) Regardless of the answers to questions 1 to 4, is it
      Treaty ?
                                                                                valid and lawful for Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 to impose the sanction of loss of the entire


title: Case T-290/03: Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Georgios Pantoulis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 264/33
The applicant finally submits that the Commission should                     —     from the failure to examine an unknown number of
have initiated a formal investigation procedure under                              candidates in the language which they had declared to be
Article 88(2) EC given the complexity of the arguments in fact                     their ‘principal’ language;
and law raised by the applicant and the economic analysis
required.                                                                    —     from the failure to examine the applicant in the third
                                                                                language declared by him, and also from the (in his
                                                                                submission) different treatment of the candidates as
(1) Case C-53/00 Ferring [2001] ECR I-9067 and Case C-280/00                       regards examination of the third language and any further
    Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, not                      languages known by them;
    yet published in the ECR.
(2) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to           —     from the appointment of further members of the selection
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives             board in addition to those initially appointed, after
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)                 notification of the names of the candidates admitted to
    (OJ L 228, p. 1).                                                              the oral examination, from the fact that the selection
                                                                                board included two members appointed by the Staff
                                                                                Committee instead of one, and from the alteration in the
                                                                                composition of the board when the oral examinations
                                                                                were conducted.
Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Georgios Pantoulis
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-290/03)                                    Action brought on 20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin
                                                                             GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (2003/C 264/56)
                                                                                (Case T-292/03)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/57)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                       (Language of the case: German)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 August 2003 by Georgios
Pantoulis, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Kharis-
sios Tagaras, lawyer.                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  20 August 2003 by Messe Berlin GmbH, Berlin, represented
                                                                             by R. Lange and E. Schalast, lawyers.
—     annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
      COM/A/6/01 — section 02 not to include him on the list
      of successful candidates in that competition and the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      defendant’s reply of 10 June 2003 by which it rejected his
      complaint under no R/55/2003, lodged on 10 February                    —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      2003, requesting revocation of the selection board;                          Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2003 (Case No R 646/
—     order the defendant to pay his costs.                                        2001-2);
                                                                             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the
                                                                                proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant pleads breaches of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
competition notice, of the principles and rules governing the
functioning of selection boards, of the principle of equal
treatment and of the Staff Regulations (Annex III). In his                   Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOMETECH’ —
submission those breaches have arisen:                                       sought:                        application No 1985118


title: Case T-446/16 P: Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/22

         Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament
   (Case T-446/16 P)
   (2016/C 371/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament), with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs;

               —

               accordingly, recognise the non-contractual liability of the European Parliament for the errors committed in the management of the appellant’s reserve list and the obligation to pay compensation for the loss suffered as a result;

               —

               accordingly, rule in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant in her application at first instance,

               —

               consequently, order:

                           —

                           The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament) is set aside with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs.

                           —

                           The European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 749 449,03 by way of compensation for material loss, evaluated for the period from December 2003 to December 2011, plus pensions funds, and for the subsequent period until the legal retirement age, at the monthly net payment amounts corresponding to the salaries fixed for officials in function group AD from grade AD 9 step 2, second year, taking account of the normal career of an official of that grade, supplemented by the corresponding contributions to the sickness fund, all to be increased by late-payment interest at the rate of the European Central Bank plus two points.

                           —

                           In addition, the European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for non-material loss.

                           —

                           The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds.

               1.

               First ground, alleging an error of law based on the plea of inadmissibility of further offers of evidence;

                           —

                           distortion of the facts, failure to give reasons, breach of the requirement of impartiality and of the right to a fair trial (second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), infringement of the principle nemo potest venire contra factum proprium and distortion of the facts on the so-called late presentation of further offers of evidence;

                           —

                           failure to acknowledge the breach of the obligation of transparency and of sincere cooperation of the Parliament towards the General Court;

                           —

                           manifest error of assessment of the change of numbering of the reserve list from EUR/A/151/98 to EUR/A/151.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging an error of law in the absence of legal classification of and reasons for the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005 and failure to comply with the annulling judgment of the General Court of the European Union;

                           —

                           absence of legal classification of the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005;

                           —

                           failure to comply with annulling judgment T-457/13 P.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging distortion of the facts as to the mail of EPSO.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging distortion of the content of the letter of 15 October 2007 of the Parliament in relation to the allegation that the appellant was informed as to the destruction of her competition file.

               5.

               Fifth ground, alleging an error of law as regards the legal classification of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2003.

               6.

               Sixth ground, alleging failure to comply with the annulling judgment in relation to the calculation of loss.


title: Case T-429/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Valero Jordana v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Valero Jordana v Commission
   (Case T-429/03) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 108/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for, primarily, annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 December 2002 setting the applicant's final classification at Grade A7, step 3, and annulment, as far as is necessary, of the Commission's decision of 9 September 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint and, as a subsidiary plea, the production of certain documents.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-47/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark goldstück — Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)
      (Case T-47/13) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark goldstück - Earlier Community word mark GOLDSTEIG - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Pröll, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 2589/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH and Ms Christin Vieweg.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-300/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Fricopan Back v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Fricopan Back v Commission
   (Case T-300/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fricopan Back GmbH Immekath (Klötze, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-37/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of 4 February 2000 in the case of Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd, a company incorporated under Scots law

text:
29.4.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 122/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  of 2 February 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
Nederlanden by judgment of 4 February 2000 in the case                   on 11 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the public
of Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd, a                       inquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus Joseph (trading as
            company incorporated under Scots law                         Woodcroft Haulage), on the following question:
                           (Case C-37/00)
                                                                         Since all serious offences are dealt with under paragraph 2 (a)
                                                                         of Schedule 3, to the 1995 Act, was the removal of the word
                          (2000/C 122/16)                                ‘repeatedly’ in relation to road transport offences (paragraph 2
                                                                         (b) of Schedule 3) necessary in order to implement Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Directive 98/76/EC (1) of 1 October 1998 and, if so, is the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad der                  correct interpretation of 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998 that
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), which was                mandatory loss of repute must occur if an individual is
received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2000, for a                convicted of 2 or more road transport offences in the course
preliminary ruling in the case of Herbert Weber v Universal              of a single court appearance?
Ogden Services Ltd, a company incorporated under Scots law,
on the following questions:
                                                                         (1) amending Directive 96/2/EC on admission to the occupation of
(a) Must work carried out on the Netherlands section of the                  road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and
     continental shelf under the North Sea by an employee as                 mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                             formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the
     defined in the Wet Arbeid Mijnbouw Noordzee (1) (Law on                 right to freedom of establishment in national and international
     Mining Work in the North Sea) (‘WAMN’) be regarded as                   transport operation (OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998, p. 17).
     or treated as equivalent to work carried out in the
     Netherlands for purposes of the application of Article 5(1)
     of the Brussels Convention? (2)
(b) If so, in order to answer the question whether the employee
     must be regarded as having carried out his work ‘habitually’
     in the Netherlands, must account be taken of the entire
     period of his employment or is only his most recent period
     of employment relevant?
(c) In answering Question (b) must a distinction be drawn                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
     between the period before the WAMN entered into force               by order of 9 February 2000 in the case of Andersen og
     — when Netherlands law had not yet designated a court                                Jensen ApS v Skatteministeriet
     with territorial jurisdiction to deal with a case such as the
     present — and the period after the WAMN entered into
     force?                                                                                (Case C-43/00)
(1) Law of 2 November 1992, Staatsblad 592.                                                        (2000/C 122/18)
(2) Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
    Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 9 February 2000 by the
                                                                         Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 14 February 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Andersen og Jensen ApS v Skatteminis-
                                                                         teriet (Finance Ministry) on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Deputy Traffic
Commissioner, North Western Traffic Area (United                         Question 1
Kingdom), by order of 2 February 2000, in the public
inquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus Joseph (trading as
                       Woodcroft Haulage)                                Must the provisions of Directive 90/434/EEC (1) (the merger
                                                                         directive) be understood as meaning that it is contrary to the
                           (Case C-38/00)                                provisions of that directive, in particular Article 2(c) and (i),
                                                                         for the authorities of a Member State to refuse to treat an
                                                                         arrangement as being covered by the directive’s provisions on
                          (2000/C 122/17)                                the transfer of assets where the effect of the arrangement in
                                                                         question is that all of the transferring company’s assets and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   liabilities are transferred to a second company (the receiving
European Communities by an order of the Deputy Traffic                   company), with the exception of a minor block of shares and
Commissioner, North Western Traffic Area (United Kingdom),               the proceeds of a loan taken out by the transferring company?


title: Case C-112/08: Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/24

         Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-112/08)
   (2008/C 128/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and in particular: Article 68(2), Article 72, Article 73(3), Article 74, Articles 99, 100 and 101, Articles 110 to 114, Articles 118 and 119, Articles 124 to 127, Articles 129 to 132, Article 133, Article 136, Articles 144 and 145, Article 149, Article 152, Article 154(1), Article 155, Annex V, Annex VI (except part I), Annex VII to XII (except Annex X parts I, II and III), and in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/48/EC into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1.


title: Case C-427/99 P: Appeal brought on 8 November 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the judgment delivered on 9 September 1999 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft

text:
C 20/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should                               2. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Judgment of the Court of First
                                                                             Instance in case T-110/98 be set aside.
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
    any event, by failing to communicate the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               3. Commission Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on
    Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the                 German aid to the coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998 L 234,
    Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open                   p. 30) be annulled.
    network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on
    universal service for telecommunications in a competitive            4. The Commission pay the costs of this appeal and those
    environment (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           incurred before the Court of First Instance.
    obligations under that directive;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Appellant submits that any reading of the words
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 used in Article 1 of the Code (Commission Decision
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        No. 3632/93/ECSC (2) of 28 December 1993 establishing
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            Community rules for State aid to the coal industry) must
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          conclude that Article 9 is a precondition before any aid may
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 30 June 1998             be considered Community aid and hence compatible with the
without the Italian Republic having brought into force the               common market. Compliance with Article 9 is not merely a
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive               procedural requirement. It is a pre-condition. State aid, there-
referred to in the Commission’s application.                             fore, may be considered Community aid only if it complies
                                                                         with Article 9(4).
(1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24.
                                                                         The Appellant submitted to the Court of First Instance that, if
                                                                         the clear wording of the Code is applied, the Commission lacks
                                                                         the competence to consider State aid as Community aid if the
                                                                         State aid is paid without complying with Article 9 (and, thus,
                                                                         does not satisfy the condition of prior authorisation).
Appeal brought on 8 November 1999 by RJB Mining plc
against the judgment delivered on 9 September 1999 by
the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court                    In rejecting the Appellant’s arguments the Court of First
of First Instance of the European Communities in case                    Instance held that:
T-110/98 (1) between RJB Mining plc and the Commission
of the European Communities, supported by the Federal
                                                                         a) a procedural provision could not have the same status as a
Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG
                                                                             substantive provision, and, on that basis;
                       Aktiengesellschaft
                       (Case C-427/99 P)                                 b) non-compliance with a procedural provision did not have
                                                                             the legal consequence of depriving the Commission of the
                         (2000/C 20/29)                                      competence to approve the State aid.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 September
1999 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                  The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance’s
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case              conclusion depends on a tortuous interpretation of the Code
T-110/98 between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the                and is clearly wrong in law.
European Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  According to the Appellant the Code makes no distinction
Communities on 8 November 1999 by RJB Mining plc, a                      between substantive and procedural pre-conditions to aid
public limited company incorporated in England with its                  being considered compatible with the common market and,
registered office at Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by            therefore, failing to satisfy either type of condition results in a
Mark Brealey, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and            lack of competence on the part of the Commission to approve
Jonathan Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in             the aid.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10,
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.98, p. 38.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1993 L 329, p. 12.
The Appellant seeks an order that:
1. The Appeal be allowed.


title: Case T-182/10: Action brought on 19 April 2010 — AISCAT v Commission

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/54

      Action brought on 19 April 2010 — AISCAT v Commission
      (Case T-182/10)
      (2010/C 161/85)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Associazone Italiana delle Società Concessionarie per la costruzione e l’esercizio di Autostrade e Trafori stradali (AISCAT) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Maresca, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the European Commission of 10 February 2010.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action seeks the annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the European Commission of 10 February 2010, which ruled out the possibility of establishing an infringement of Article 87 EC (now Article 107 TFEU) on the part of the Italian Republic on the basis that it awarded the concession for the construction and management of a section of motorway (known as the Passante di Mestre), without issuing an invitation to tender, to a semi-public company, CAV SpA (a limited company equally owned by ANAS SpA and the Veneto Region) and financed the construction of the motorway section by means of an increase in the tariff payable at toll stations on the parallel and competing section of motorway.
      The applicant relies on two grounds in support of its claim that it can be established that the Italian Republic infringed Article 87 EC (now Article 107 TFEU).
      First, the direct award by the Italian Republic to CAV of the concession for the construction and management of the Passante di Mestre by means of Article 2(290) of Law No 244 of 24 December 2007 constitutes State aid since, in spite of the fact that the lawful requirements relating to in house procurement were not met, the concession was awarded to a semi-public company whose statutes and management structure confer upon it an unfair competitive advantage. CAV is 50 % owned by ANAS, which, whilst fulfilling a public function as a regulatory body, also operates as an undertaking (the construction and management of motorways) on the market which it itself regulates, to the rules of which it is subject and in respect of which it is itself a grantor of concessions.
      Second, the fact that the Italian Republic approved the agreement concluded between ANAS (in its capacity as granting entity) and CAV for the financing of the Passante di Mestre by means of an increase in the tariff payable at toll stations on the parallel and competing section of motorway constitutes a grant of State aid to CAV.
      The increase in the tariff was in fact the means by which traffic was diverted onto the new section of motorway (the Passante di Mestre) and, at the same time, brought about a fall in the volume of traffic on the competing section (the Tangenziale di Mestre), which was subject to the increase. The object of the aid is not, therefore, the sum deriving from the increase in the tariff in itself, but rather the competitive advantage which CAV derives from this, in contrast with the loss incurred by the companies operating the Tangenziale di Mestre.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2003 in Case C-233/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the environment — Incomplete or incorrect transposition)

text:
C 184/2                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                  2.8.2003
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/105/                 (Agents: initially J.-F. Dobelle and D. Colas, and, subsequently,
EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of                       the latter and G. de Bergues): Application for a declaration
measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human                that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 2(a) and 3(2), (3)
use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance             and (4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on
systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8), in particular by not applying the               the freedom of access to information on the environment (OJ
prescribed procedure to decisions determining a category of                   1990 L 158, p. 56), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
special cover and, with regard to the prescribed obligations, by              obligations under that directive and under the third paragraph
not providing the applicant with a sufficient statement of                    of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of
reasons based on objective and verifiable criteria in the case of             Article 249 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
negative decisions, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its          J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen
obligations under that directive and in particular Article 6                  (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
thereof, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                              Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                  26 June 2003, in which it:
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                1.    Declares that:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
      Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the
      transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal
      products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of
      national health insurance systems as regards the decisions                    by restricting the obligation to supply information relating to
      establishing the categories of medicinal products subject to a                the environment to ‘administrative documents’ within the
      higher rate of health insurance cover, the Republic of Finland                meaning of Law No 78-753 of 17 July 1978 establishing
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first and second               various measures to improve relations between the administrative
      subparagraphs of Article 6 of that directive;                                 authorities and the public and various administrative, social and
                                                                                fiscal provisions;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                      by providing, as one of the grounds for refusing to supply such
                                                                                information, that the consultation or provision of the document
(1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.                                                            would prejudice, ‘generally, secrets protected by legislation’;
                                                                                by failing to include in the national legislation a provision
                                                                                under which information relating to the environment is to be
                                                                                supplied in part where it is possible to separate out information
                                                                                on items concerning the interests referred to in Article 3(2) of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom
                                                                                of access to information on the environment, which may
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          accordingly justify a refusal, and
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                                by failing to provide, in the case of an implied refusal of a
in Case C-233/00: Commission of the European Commu-                                 request for information relating to the environment, that the
                    nities v French Republic (1)                                    public authorities are required to provide the reasons for that
                                                                                refusal automatically and at the latest within two months of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                        submission of the initial request, the French Republic has failed
90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the                                to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(a) and 3(1), (2) and
     environment — Incomplete or incorrect transposition)                           (4) of that directive;
                           (2003/C 184/03)
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)                             3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 233, 12.8.2000.
In Case C-233/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic


title: Case C-45/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)) — Campina GmbH & Co., formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) (Milk and milk products — Additional levy — Slight delay in observing the time-limit for communication of the summary of statements — Financial penalty — Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 — Article 3(2), second subparagraph — Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 — Article 5(3) — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 2(2), second sentence — Principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)) — Campina GmbH & Co., formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   (Case C-45/06) (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Additional levy - Slight delay in observing the time-limit for communication of the summary of statements - Financial penalty - Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 - Article 3(2), second subparagraph - Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 - Article 5(3) - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 2(2), second sentence - Principle of retroactive application of the less severe penalty)
   (2007/C 95/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Campina GmbH & Co., formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Validity of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), as amended by Regulation 1001/98 (OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22) — Penalty for failure to comply with the time-limit for the annual submission of the statements of the individual producers — Slight delay in observing the time-limit — Principle of proportionality
   Operative part of the judgment
   The principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty must be respected by national courts when they have to penalise practices which do not comply with rules laid down by Community legislation.
   In the case of a slight delay in observing the deadline such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the system of financial penalties provided for by Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products is less severe than that provided for by the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-281/13: Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/15

         Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)
   (Case T-281/13)
   2013/C 215/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH (Springe, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 March 2013 in Case R 2022/2011-2;

               —

               reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

               —

               order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘METABIOMAX’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 8885261

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘metabiarex’ which has been registered under No 857721, for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009


title: Case C-452/07: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 3 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Health Research Inc

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 3 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Health Research Inc
   (Case C-452/07) (1)

   (2008/C 313/36)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case C-397/03 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cartels — Synthetic lysine market — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Non bis in idem principle — Equal treatment — Turnover which may be taken into account)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-397/03 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Cartels - Synthetic lysine market - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Non-retroactivity - Non bis in idem principle - Equal treatment - Turnover which may be taken into account)
   (2006/C 165/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd (represented by: C.O. Lenz, Rechtsanwalt, E. Batchelor, L. Martin Alegi and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent, and by J. Flynn QC)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2003 in Case T-224/00 Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd v Commission dismissing in part an application for annulment of, or a reduction in the fine imposed by, Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-57/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/5

         Appeal brought on 1 February 2016 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2015 in joined cases T-424/14 and T-425/14: ClientEarth v European Commission
   (Case C-57/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, F. Heringa, J. Wolfhagen, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               i.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2015 by which it:

                           —

                           dismissed the actions brought by the Appellant;

                           —

                           ordered the Appellant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               ii.

               to order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant respectfully submits that the Judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

         Ground 1
      : Error in law in accepting a general presumption in the context of article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) (first subparagraph) with respect to the requested documents.
   The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

               i.

               misapplied the case-law of the CJ;

               ii.

               failed to recognize that Article 17(1) to (3) TEU provides no basis to accept such general presumption;

               iii.

               accepted a general presumption with respect to non-disclosure of the requested documents without applying the test of actual and specific harm;

               iv.

               failed to acknowledge that the requested documents are intrinsically linked to the decision to pursue or not to pursue legislative policy initiatives;

         Ground 2
      : Error in law in not recognizing the existence of an overriding public interest.
   The General Court committed an error in law, since it:

               i.

               failed to consider the specific public interests raised by ClientEarth;

               ii.

               found that the disclosure of requested documents at a later point in time precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

               iii.

               found that the disclosure of documents other than the requested documents precludes the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents;

               iv.

               did not recognise the nature of the public interest represented by ClientEarth;

               v.

               failed to interpret the grounds for refusal in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure, as provided by the second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006 (2);

               vi.

               did not recognise the public interest in the improvement of access to justice in environmental matters.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies OJ L 264, p. 13


title: Case T-283/05: Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/33

         Action brought on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-283/05)
   (2005/C 229/70)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 July 2005 by Daniele Baraldi, resident in Alkmaar (Netherlands), Jacobus De Bruijn, resident in Ispra (Italy), and Christel Schilleger-Musset, resident in Brebbia (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the grade classification laid down for the applicants in the decisions relating to their recruitment in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;

               —

               consequently, reconstruct the applicants' career bracket (including the assessment of their experience in the grade thereby rectified, and of their promotion and pension rights, which were determined, in particular, in accordance with Article 21 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations), to reflect the grade in which they should have been appointed on the basis of the notice of competition pursuant to which they were placed on the recruitment reserve list, either that stated in the competition notice, or in the equivalent grade in accordance with the new Staff Regulations (and in the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), as from the appointment decision;

               —

               award the applicants payment of default interest, on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, on the total sum corresponding to the difference between the salary for the grade laid down in the recruitment decision and that for the grade to which they should have been entitled up to the date of the decision as to their correct grade;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicants are identical to those raised in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 13.4.2005, p. 38.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, by order of that court of 24 December 1996, in the case of Regina against John Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead (Case C-3/97)

text:
 No C 74/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 3 . 97
     employment for the duration of the employment as                   paragraph 19 (2 ) of the Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal
     freely determined between the employer and the                      Law on Social Assistance )) to a limited group of persons ?
     employee ( i.e. length of employment) and the benefits
     arising from such security, such as a career structure
     providing the possibility of promotion, vocational
     training and pay and retirement pensions
     commensurate to the seniority of the applicant,
     applying mutatis mutandis the reasoning used by the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     European Court of Justice in inter alia Case C-272/92              Criminal Division, by order of that court of 24 December
     Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern [ 1994] 3 CMLR 29, [ 1993 ]
                                                                         1996, in the case of Regina against John Charles Goodwin
     ECR 1-5185 and Case 225/85 Commission v. Italy                                        and Edward Thomas Unstead
     [ 1987] ECR 2625 ?
                                                                                (Case C-3/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/28 )
 2 . If so, does the fact that the length of the applicant's
     employment is subject to a de facto time limit by the
     operation of the United Kingdom immigration laws                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and in the instant case is being terminated by the                 European Communities by an order of the Court of
     respondent's decision not to extend the applicant's                Appeal, Criminal Division, of 24 December 1996, which
     leave to remain in the United Kingdom constitute                   was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1997, for
     discrimination in relation to such 'working conditions'            a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina against John
     on grounds of nationality where the respondent could               Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead, on the
     not impose such a de facto time limit and/or forced                following question :
     termination of employment upon its own nationals ?
                                                                        Does the supply of counterfeit perfume products fall
3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the                        within the scope of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     affirmative, does Article 40 of the EC/Morocco                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Cooperation Agreement require the Member State to                  Member States relating to turnover taxes (the sixth
     grant the Moroccan worker leave to remain for the                  Directive ) ( 1 )?
     duration of his lawful employment ?
                                                                        (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
Reference      for    a       preliminary     ruling    by    the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen by                      State, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 18 December
order    of  that   court     of   9   December    1996   in  the
                                                                        1996 in the case of NV Ballast Nedam Group v. Belgian
administrative proceedings between Mehmet Birden and                                                      State
                    Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                                ( Case C-5/97 )
                         ( Case C-l /97 )
                                                                                97/C 74/29
                           ( 97/C 74/27 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                        European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
of the European Communities by order of the                            Staate ( Council of State ) of 18 December 1997, which was
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen                        received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1997, for a
( Administrative Court of the Free Hanseatic City of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Ballast Nedam Group v.
Bremen ) of 9 December 1996, received at the Court                     Belgian State
Registry on 6 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Mehmet Birden v. Stadtgemeinde Bremen ( City               on the following questions :
of Bremen ) on the following question:
                                                                        1 . May the word 'permit' in the phrase 'permit [. . .]
Is a Turkish worker a duly registered member of the                         account to be taken of [...]' in the operative part of
labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of                       the judgment in Case C-389/92 (') be taken to mean
Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey                       'require'?
Association     Council       on    the   development    of   the
Association, if he has a job sponsored by that Member                  2. If the word 'permit' in the above phrase cannot be
State with public funds and requiring payment of social                     taken to mean 'require ', does that mean that the
security contributions which is meant to enable him to                      Member State concerned in this regard enjoys a
enter or re-enter working life and which, owing to the                      discretionary power, even where the condition laid
State sponsorship, may only be offered (pursuant to                         down by the Court is satisfied ?


title: Case C-626/11 P: Summary for the Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/11

         Summary for the Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-1/10: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-626/11 P)
   2012/C 39/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, R. Cana, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Order of the General Court in Case T-1/10; and

               —

               annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006; or

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants' Application for annulment; and

               —

               order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006, the General Court breached Union law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:

               —

               In holding that identification of a substance as a Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) by the ECHA Member State Committee in accordance with Article 59(8) of Regulation 1907/2006 is not a decision intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties before the publication of that decision on the Candidate list of SVHC in accordance with Article 59(10) Regulation 1907/2006;

         For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-1/10 should be set aside and the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006, should be annulled.

      (1)  1 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC
   OJ L 396, p. 1


title: Case C-331/05 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities, lodged on 6 September 2005

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/17

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities, lodged on 6 September 2005
   (Case C-331/05 P)
   (2005/C 271/32)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the order of 11 July 2005 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 September 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., represented by Dr jur. Hans Kaltenecker, 5 rue Raffet, F-75016 Paris.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 (1) and either refer the case back to the Court of First Instance or order the defendant to pay to the claimant the amount of EUR 54 037,00;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant substantiates its appeal against the aforementioned order of the Court of First Instance by pleading misappraisal and misapplication of the rules of procedure and of Community law and non-observance of decisions of the Community courts:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that there is a legal and factual difference between costs of proceedings relating to court proceedings and costs arising in the context of a claim for compensation.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance provided no legally persuasive explanation as to why it more or less automatically excludes the lawyers' fees in complaint proceedings before the European mediator from the costs which can be claimed in compensation proceedings. It did not examine the factual and legal substantiation of the need for the involvement of a lawyer in the complaint proceedings brought by the appellant.

               3.

               The examination by the Court of First Instance of the question of the causal connection between the Commission's unlawful conduct and the damage alleged was superficial and the view reached by it was incorrect.

               4.

               The Court of First Instance erred in law in placing reliance on a judgment of the Court in order to substantiate its erroneous assertion that proceedings before the European Ombudsman as a matter of principle do not require a lawyer to be involved. That judgment related to the case of a Commission staff member which fell to be determined in accordance with the criteria under the rules on the employment of staff and had no inherent connection with the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 229 of 17. 9. 2005.


title: Case T-94/06: Action brought on  13 March 2006  — Gargani v Parliament

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/15

         Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Gargani v Parliament
   (Case T-94/06)
   (2006/C 121/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Gargani (Morra de Sanctis, Italy) (represented by: W. Rothley, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by deciding to submit observations on a question submitted for a preliminary ruling in Case C-305/05 pending before the Court of Justice, the Parliament infringed Article 121 of its Rules of Procedure;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought in light of the fact that the President of the European Parliament, representing that institution in Case C-305/05, submitted observations under the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. According to the applicant this opinion was issued without having been put to the vote of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament and without a decision of the European Parliament in plenary session having been obtained.
   The applicant bases his action on an infringement of Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.


title: Case T-381/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Eurofer v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission quotas from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmark to be applied for the calculation of the allocation of emission quotas — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory instrument containing implementation measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Eurofer v Commission
   (Case T-381/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission quotas from 2013 - Commission decision determining the product benchmark to be applied for the calculation of the allocation of emission quotas - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory instrument containing implementation measures - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 217/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene of Euroalliages.

               3.

               Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-731/16: Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Perifereia Stereas Elladas v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/36

         Action brought on 10 October 2016 — Perifereia Stereas Elladas v Commission
   (Case T-731/16)
   (2016/C 462/46)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Perifereia Stereas Elladas (Lamia, Greece) (represented by: K. Bakas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul and declare void the contested decision of 10 August 2016 bearing the number 4310049 (Ares(2016) 4310049 — 10/08/2016) of the European Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, signed by the Director for Social Affairs, whereby the Commission rejected the proposal dated 3 December 2015 seeking funding which the consortium of which the applicant is the leading member submitted with respect to the European programme for Employment and Social Innovation EASI (PROGRESS AXIS) 2014-2020 for ‘social policy innovations supporting reforms in social services’ on grant application form VP/2-15/011· and;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs and the fees of the lawyer representing it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law is based on the claim that European Commission erred in its assessment of the content of the applicant’s proposal.

               2.

               The second plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains that, if it is argued that the rejection was made for formal reasons, the contested act must be annulled as being contrary to the Community principles of proportionality and good administration.

               3.

               The first plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of equal treatment due to the fact that, while, where there were technical problems, an extension of time was given to any applicants who had not submitted a proposal, on the other hand no corresponding right was given to applicants who had submitted their proposals to provide corrections or supplementary information or clarification.


title: Case C-429/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi
   (Case C-429/16)
   (2016/C 392/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa and Others

      Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im dr L. Rydygiera Sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

      Question referred

   ‘Is Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an employer employing at least 20 employees and who intends to give notices of termination of contractual conditions in relation to a number of employees, as provided for in Article 1(1) of the Law of 13 March 2003 laying down special rules on terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons unrelated to the employees (Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników, Dz. U. 2003, No 90, item 844, as amended), is required to use the procedures specified in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 6 of that law, that is, does that obligation apply in the case of the following articles:

               1.

               Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 241(2) 8 and Article 23 1 of the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy);

               2.

               Article 241(2) 13 in conjunction with Article 77(5) 2 or Article 241(1) 7 of the Labour Code;

               3.

               Article 42(1) of the Labour Code in conjunction with Article 45(1) of the Labour Code?’

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-248/13: Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union: interveners: European Parliament, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/45

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union: interveners: European Parliament, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-248/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/75
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-252/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/92/EC — Insurance mediation — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/23

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-252/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/92/EC - Insurance mediation - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 331/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and U. Forsthoff, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-169/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/83)
   By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-169/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret): Dansk Postordreforening v Skattenministeriet.

      (1)  JO C 156 du 29.6.2002