title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that tribunal of 23 April 1998 in the case of Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Telefonadress GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third party: Herold Business Data AG (Case C-324/98)

text:
24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/11
Ð For the purposes of Article 1(4), second indent, of                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
     Directive 91/689/EEC, what procedure must an                    vergabeamt by order of that tribunal of 23 April 1998
     individual Member State follow in classifying as                in the case of Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and
     hazardous waste other than that on the list adopted by          Telefonadress GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third
     Council Decision 904/94/EC which exhibits one of the                           party: Herold Business Data AG
     characteristics set out in Annex III to the directive?
     What body is competent to make the assessment and                                      (Case C-324/98)
     subsequently notify the Commission?                                                     (98/C 327/17)
Ð Can the judicial authorities of an individual Member
     State also be required to notify the Commission?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate
                                                                     of the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal Procurement Office) of
                                                                     23 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
Ð Under Community legislation, is diphenylmethane                    on 26 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     diisocyanate (MDI) to be classified as hazardous waste          Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Telefonadress
     or not?                                                         GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third party: Herold
                                                                     Business Data AG, on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                     Principal question:
                                                                     1. Can it be inferred from the legislative history of
                                                                          Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in particular the proposal of
                                                                          the Commission (COM (90) 372 final, OJ C 23,
                                                                          31.1.1991, p. 1), or from the definition of the term
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                public service contract' in Article 1(a) of Directive 92/
e Penale di Verona by order of 19 August 1998 in the case                 50/EEC, that certain categories of contracts concluded
of Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta                        by contracting authorities subject to that directive with
                              SA                                          undertakings which provide services are to be
                       (Case C-323/98)                                    excluded a priori from the scope of the directive,
                                                                          solely on the basis of certain common characteristics
                         (98/C 327/16)                                    as specified in that proposal of the Commission,
                                                                          without the need to rely on Article 1(a)(i) to (viii) or
                                                                          Articles 4 to 6 of Directive 92/50/EEC?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e              If the principal question is answered in the affirmative:
Penale di Verona (Civil and Criminal District Court,
Verona) of 19 August 1998, received at the Court Registry
on 25 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA                   2. Do such categories of contracts also exist, having
on the following question:                                                regard in particular to the 24th recital in the preamble
                                                                          to Council Directive 93/38/EEC (2), within the scope of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC?
Is the rule of national law contained in the last paragraph
of Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of
which an Italian creditor seeking to enforce a claim                 If the second question is answered in the affirmative:
against a foreign debtor is denied protection under the
summary order procedure provided for by Article 633 et
seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the order has
to be served abroad, incompatible with and precluded by              3. May those categories of contracts excluded from the
application of the principles of freedom of movement of                   scope of Directive 93/38/EEC be adequately described,
goods and capital and freedom to provide services                         by analogy with Commission proposal COM (90) 372,
enshrined in Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of                     as having as their essential feature that a contracting
Rome?'                                                                    entity which falls within the scope ratione personae of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC cedes a service for which it is
                                                                          responsible to an undertaking of its choice in return
                                                                          for the right to operate the service concerned for
                                                                          financial gain?
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
Supplementary to the first three questions:                          Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the French Republic
4. Is a contracting entity which falls within the scope                                       (Case C-327/98)
     ratione personae of Directive 93/38/EEC obliged,                                          (98/C 327/18)
     where a contract concluded by it contains elements of
     a service contract within the meaning of Article 1(4)(a)
     of Directive 93/38/EEC together with elements of a
     different contractual nature which are not within the           An action against the French Republic was brought before
     scope of that directive, to sever the part of the overall       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     contract which is subject to Directive 93/38/EEC, in so         4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
     far as that is technically possible and economically            Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
     reasonable, and make that part the subject of a                 Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of that                national civil servant on secondment to its legal Service,
     directive, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-3/            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     88 (3) before the entry into force of Directive 92/50/          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
     EEC with respect to a contract which was not subject            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     as a whole to Council Directive 77/62/EEC (4)?
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit
5. Is the contractual concession of the exclusive right                  to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
     to operate a service for financial gain, which will                 measures necessary in order to comply with Articles 9,
     give the service provider an income which cannot                    10, 11, 12 and 14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of
     be determined but which in the light of general                     5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions
     experience will not be inconsiderable and may be                    relating to the placing on the market and supervision
     expected to exceed the costs of providing the service,              of explosives for civil uses (1), the French Republic has
     to be regarded as payment for the provision of the                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
     service, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-272/
     91 (5) in connection with a supply contract and a right
     ceded by the public authorities in lieu of payment?             Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Supplementary to the above questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6. Are the provisions of Article 1(4)(a) and (c) of
     Directive 93/38/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that           Under Article 19(1) of Directive 93/15/EEC, Member
     a contract which provides for the provision of services         States are required to bring into force the provisions
     within the meaning of Annex XVI A, category 15,                 necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
     loses the nature of a service contract and becomes a            of that directive before 30 September 1993.
     supply contract if the result of the service is the
     production of a large number of identical tangible
     objects which have an economic value and thus                   The Commission has received no communication from
     constitute goods within the meaning of Articles 9 and           the French authorities regarding the adoption of the
     30 of the EC Treaty?                                            provisions referred to above.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
7. Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-3/88
     to be interpreted as meaning that such a supply
     contract is to be severed from the other components
     of the service contract and made the subject of a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of Directive           Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
     93/38/EEC, in so far as this is technically possible and        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     economically reasonable?                                                                     Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-328/98)
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                                                 (98/C 327/19)
(3) [1989] ECR 4035.
(4) OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1.
(5) [1992] ECR I-3929.                                               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Case C-116/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State
   (Case C-116/12)
   2012/C 138/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Trimeles Protodikeio Serron

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA

      Defendant: Greek State

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 apply to the determination of the customs value of imported goods where the contract is for processing or working of materials (exported to the country of processing without being placed under the customs procedure of outward processing) which is not at the level provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation or which is otherwise insufficient to permit it to be held that the origin of the goods produced is the country where that processing or working was carried out?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is a distinction to be made where the import, on the basis of invoices and other documents held to be inaccurate, appears to have taken place under a contract of sale, but it is proven that the contract was for non-substantial processing of materials originating in the country of import in return for a specific fee, which can be determined, and that the declared customs value does not correspond to the real price payable or paid?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, is a distinction to be made where there is also evidence of a practice that constitutes abuse of Community rules with the aim of enabling the interested party to derive an advantage?

               4.

               If it is held that Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 can be applied to a case such as that described in Question 2, even when the objective circumstances and subjective factor of Question 3 coincide, what is considered to be the value of the component (in the present case sugar) which was incorporated into the imported goods and supplied at no cost to the importer, where the component in question, which could not be subject to a customs procedure of outward processing in accordance with Article 146(1) of the said Regulation, was not produced by him, but was acquired by him at the export price (which was lower than the price that applied on the internal market, since the product is subject to the refund system)?


title: Case T-456/07: Order of the General Court of 12 February 2010 — Commission v CdT (Action for annulment — Community pension scheme — Obligation on CdT to pay a contribution in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005 — Non-actionable measure — Measure not producing legal effects in respect of third parties — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/40

         Order of the General Court of 12 February 2010 — Commission v CdT
   (Case T-456/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Community pension scheme - Obligation on CdT to pay a contribution in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005 - Non-actionable measure - Measure not producing legal effects in respect of third parties - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 100/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: initially, G. Versanden, and, subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the alleged decision by which CdT refused to pay into the general budget, in connection with the budget years 1998 to 2005, a contribution representing the part of the financing of the Community pension scheme falling to the employer

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006 (formerly Case C-269/06).


title: Case T-343/09: Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Beate Uhse (69 Sex up)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/75

         Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Beate Uhse (69 Sex up)
   (Case T-343/09)
   2009/C 267/134
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare admissible the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 in Case R 1728/2008-1;

               —

               Annul the contested decision on the ground of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; (1)

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the opposition and the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark “69 Sex up” for goods and services in Classes 32 and 41 (Application No 5 274 303).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark “sex:h:up” for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 (No 30 531 669), although the opposition was directed solely against the registration for goods in class 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: allow the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-469/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Bologna — Sezione 1a penale — by order of that Court of 22 September 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Mario Filimeno Miraglia

text:
C 21/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.1.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                —     principally, if the state of the proceedings so permits,
Bologna — Sezione 1a penale — by order of that Court of                     uphold the claims made at first instance by the appellant
22 September 2003 in the criminal proceedings against                       and, in consequence, annul the Commission’s decision of
                    Mario Filimeno Miraglia                                 29 November 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by
                                                                            Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de
                                                                            Vizcaya or, secondarily, annul Article 2 of the Decision
                        (Case C-469/03)
                                                                            in so far as it orders repayment of ESP 985 500 000,
                                                                            together with interest;
                         (2004/C 21/25)
                                                                      —     if the preceding claim is not allowed, refer the matter
                                                                            back to the Court of First Instance;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna
— Sezione 1a penale — (Bologna District Court, First Criminal         —     in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs of
Collegiate Chamber) of 22 September 2003, received at the                   both sets of proceedings.
Court Registry on 10 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Mario Filimeno Miraglia
on the following question:
Does Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen
Agreement of 14 June 1985 apply when the decision of the              Pleas in law and main arguments
court in the first State appears to discontinue prosecution
without adjudicating on the merits of the case and on the sole
premise that proceedings are taking place in another State?           —     Error of law, in that the Court of First Instance interpreted
                                                                            the ‘advantage’ element of the concept of State aid in the
                                                                            light of the principle of a private investor operating in
                                                                            normal market economy conditions, so introducing as a
                                                                            criterion of analysis the criterion of assessing the need for
                                                                            public intervention;
Appeal brought on 12 November 2003 (by fax of                         —     misinterpretation of Article 87 EC, inasmuch as the Court
10 November 2003) by the Diputación Foral de Bizkaia                        of First Instance inferred the existence of State aid because
against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003 by the                      it considered that there was no need for the purchase of
First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                        vouchers;
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 between P. & O. European
Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. (T-116/01) and the Diputación                  —     error of law, in that the Court of First Instance did not
Foral de Vizcaya (T-118/01) and the Commission of the                       penalise the lack of economic analysis in the Com-
                    European Communities                                    mission’s decision, where it declared that all the sums
                                                                            paid constituted State aid;
                       (Case C-471/03 P)
                                                                      —     clear distortion by the Court of First Instance of the
                         (2004/C 21/26)                                     statement of reasons given for the decision, on the basis
                                                                            solely of lack of transparency in the selection of the
                                                                            shipping company, so as to exclude application of
                                                                            Article 87(2)(a) EC, which gave rise to infringement of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 August 2003                   the right to a fair hearing because no real answer was
by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                 given to the arguments put forward in the application;
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-116/01 and T-118/01 between P. & O. European Ferries
(Vizcaya) S.A. (T-116/01) and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya         —     obvious inaccuracy as regards matters taken by the
(T-118/01) and the Commission of the European Communities                   Court of First Instance to be proven facts and incorrect
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     classification of facts, in that the Court of First Instance
Communities on 12 November 2003 by the Diputación Foral                     considered that the aid contained in the 1995 agreement
de Bizkaia, represented by Marta Morales Isasì and Ignacio                  was ‘instituted and implemented in 1992’ and drew the
Sáenz-Cortabarria.                                                          legal inference therefrom that the aid was unlawful, which
                                                                            amounts to clear distortion of the facts, of the Decision
                                                                            itself and of the evidence, and breach of procedural
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 rules, in that the Court of First Instance substituted the
                                                                            Commission’s reasoning for its own in classifying the aid
—     set aside the contested judgment;                                     at issue as illegal;


title: Case F-104/08: Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Angelidis v Parliament

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/77

         Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Angelidis v Parliament
   (Case F-104/08)
   (2009/C 44/140)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of notice of vacancy No 12564 adopted by the President of the European Parliament, dated 26 February 2008, concerning the filling of the post of Director of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the European Union — Directorate D Budgetary Affairs and the recruitment procedure initiated by that notice. Second, annulment of the decision to reject the applicant's candidacy for the post of Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies and to appoint another candidate to that post. Lastly, a claim for damages for the non-material and material loss suffered by the applicant and for him to be appointed to the grade of Director ‘ad personam’.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 September 2008 and, consequently, notice of vacancy No 12564 adopted by the President of the European Parliament, dated 26 February 2008, concerning the filling of the post of Director of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the European Union — Directorate D Budgetary Affairs;

               —

               Consequently, annul the procedure for recruitment by means of transfer or promotion initiated by the notice of vacancy;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2008 appointing the Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies and the decision to reject the applicant's candidature in respect of that post;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages for non-material and material loss and for the detriment to the applicant's career which he assesses, without prejudice to claiming a greater or a lesser sum in the course of the procedure, at the global sum of EUR 25 000, and that, taking account of the inadequate enforcement of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2007, the finding of a serious misuse of powers and of the conditions in which that new contested appointment occurred;

               —

               In any event, order that the applicant be awarded the grade of Director ‘ad personam’ by virtue of the serious harm caused to his career in that the Parliament without justification denied him an appointment to a higher grade;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M. Stoffelen against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-56/97)

text:
No C 142/26            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant the sum of Fl 330 626, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of payment in full;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                       Case 7-50/97 ( x ).
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 57 698
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full;
                                                                       Action brought on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M.
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                           Stoffelen against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                              ( Case T-56/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/55
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 6 March 1997 by W. C. G. M. Stoffelen,
                                                                       of Ottersum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
against the Council of the European Union and the                      of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
           Commission of the European Communities                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                       Guillaume .
                          ( Case T-55 /97 )
                           ( 97/C 142/54 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant the sum of Fl 313 437, together with interest
the Commission of the European Communities was                                thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    1992 until the date of payment in full ;
Communities on 6 March 1997 by C. H. L. Wijnen, of
Maasbree (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                       in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                              think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 122 738
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                           ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Guillaume .
                                                                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
                                                                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   1992 until the date of the payment in full;
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                     ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .
      applicant the sum of Fl 234 230, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of payment in full;                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall              Case T-50/97 C ).
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 97 506
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full ;


title: Case T-296/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/27

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — EFIM v Commission
   (Case T-296/09)
   2009/C 256/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 20 May 2009 in case — COMP/C 3/39.391 EFIM. In that decision, the Commission dismissed the applicant’s complaint, in which it claimed various infringements of Articles 81 and 82 EC by several manufactures of ink-jet printers on their markets for ink-cartridges.
   In the reasoning for its action, the applicant claims, first, that the Commission did not take into account a large number of important elements of fact and, in so doing, infringed the principle of sound administration, the duty of care, the obligation to state reasons and the right to a fair hearing. Moreover, the applicant contends that the assessments made by the defendant in the contested decision, in particular with regard to the criteria for priority in treatment of the appeal procedure, are obviously incorrect and vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Finally, it is submitted that an effective protection of competition, against the restrictions alleged by the applicant, can only be safeguarded by the defendant, because the national Competition Authorities and the Courts only have limited territorial jurisdiction.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Removal from the register of Case C-49/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/50)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 23 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-49/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of 21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung (Case C-20/98)

text:
28.3.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
                                                                                Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                                          (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                                            (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
 1                                                                      European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
                                                                        waltungssenat     (Independent     Administrative     Board)
                                                                        Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
                                                                        schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
                                                                        bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-19/98)
                                                                        Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
                          (98/C 94/20)                                  freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
                                                                        of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
                                                                        preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                      of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                    abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric                slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,               regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.                            distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                        calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     or    communicate,         the    laws,    regulations    or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
     1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to insurance against civil liability in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
     respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom              Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under                Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
     Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty,                                        NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
                                                                                (Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
     22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of                                           (98/C 94/22)
     formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
                                                                        of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
                                                                        Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                    Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for                 Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                           1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal.                                   it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
                                                                            under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
                                                                            with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member


title: Case T-291/07: Action brought on 1 August 2007 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/19

         Action brought on 1 August 2007 — Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass (ALFONSO)
   (Case T-291/07)
   (2007/C 235/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: M Lobato García-Miján and B. Díaz de Escauriaza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: González Byass, S. A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 May 2007 upholding the appeal brought by GONZÁLEZ BYASS, S.A. against the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 July 2007 which upheld the opposition filed by the applicant against the application for the Community trade mark ALFONSO;

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: GONZÁLEZ BYASS, S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALFONSO’ (application for registration No 3398278) for goods in Classes 30 (vinegars), 32 (beers, mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices, syrups and other preparations for making beverages) and 33 (sherries).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘PRÍNCIPE ALFONSO’, for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition in relation to ‘sherries’ upheld and application for registration for those goods refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and decision appealed annulled.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994,L 11, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 1995 in Case C-79/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/62/EEC - Framework agreement for the exclusive supply of dressing material for use in Greek hospitals and by the Greek army)

text:
No C 159/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 6 . 95
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities,
the Registrar, has given a j udgment on 4 May 1 995, in which                 the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
it rules :                                                                    under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December
                                                                              1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public
                                                                              supply contracts, as last amended by Directive
The definition of 'child' for the purposes of Article 12 of                   88/29 S/EEC of 22 March 1988;
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community is not subject to the same conditions of age or               2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
dependency as are the rights governed by Article 10 (1 ) and
Article 11 of that Regulation.
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                      ( 3 ) OJ No L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 4 May 1995
                            of 4 May 1995
                                                                        in Case C-218/94 : Commission of the European
in     Case    C-79/94 : Commission of the              European                    Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( x )
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
                                                                        (Failure ofa Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
(Failure ofa Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                           91/263/EEC — Failure to transpose)
 77/62/EEC — Framework agreement for the exclusive
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/04 )
supply ofdressing material for use in Greek hospitals and by
                           the Greek army)
                             ( 95/C 159/03 )                                             (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-218/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agents : Anders Jessen and Jean-Francis
                                                                        Pasquier ) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder) —
In Case C-79/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                        application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
Communities (Agent: X. A. Yataganas ) v. Hellenic Republic
                                                                        laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
(Agents : V. Kontolaimos and E. -M. Mamouna ) —
                                                                        comply with Council Directive 91 /263/EEC of 29 April
application for a declaration that, by concluding a
                                                                        1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
framework agreement for the exclusive supply by six Greek
textile undertakings of dressing material for use in Greek              States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
hospitals and by the Greek army and by failing to publish
                                                                        including the mutual recognition of their conformity ( 2 ), the
the relevant notice in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                        Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Communities, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                        under Article 17 of the above Directive, and, in the
obligations under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of
                                                                        alternative , a declaration that, by failing to inform the
21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award
                                                                        Commission without -delay of the measures adopted to that
of public supply contracts ( 2 ), as last amended by Directive
88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth                   end, the Kingdom of Belgium has in any event failed to fulfil
                                                                        its obligations under those provisions — the Court ( Sixth
Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.             Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
                                                                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, G.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                        Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
                                                                        Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 1995 , in which
it :
                                                                        judgment on 4 May 1 995 , in which it:
1 . declares that, by concluding a framework agreement for              1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the period
      the exclusive supply by six Greek textile undertakings of               specified the laws, regulations and administrative
      dressing material for use in Greek hospitals and by the                 measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
      Greek army and by failing to publish the relevant notice                91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of


title: Case C-650/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Thierry Delvigne v Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde
   (Case C-650/13)
   2014/C 129/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance de Bordeaux

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thierry Delvigne

      Defendants: Commune de Lesparre Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as preventing a provision of national law from maintaining a ban — which, moreover, is indefinite and disproportionate — on allowing persons who were convicted before the entry into force of a more lenient criminal law, namely, Law No 94-89 of 1 February 1994, to receive a lighter penalty?

               2.

               Is Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, applicable to elections to the European Parliament, to be interpreted as precluding the Member States of the European Union from making provision for a general, indefinite and automatic ban on exercising civil and political rights, in order to avoid creating any inequality of treatment between nationals of the Member States?


title: Case T-143/00: Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 211/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the               — Annul the Commission decision to appoint another official
     non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result                to post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles, other means of
     of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                  transport and related mechanical construction’, being an
     by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual               A5 - A4 Head of Unit post;
     file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
     was kept regarding his professional future;                          — Annul the Commission decision not to accept the applican-
                                                                              t’s application for post COM/070/99 IV/2 ‘Automobiles,
— Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such                       other means of transport and related mechanical construc-
     greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course                 tion’, being an A5 - A4 Head of Unit post, and all the
     of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his                   measures preparatory to that decision which themselves
     being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss             proved to be improper;
     of any chance of promotion;
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for the
                                                                              non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
Contentions and principal arguments                                           of the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled
                                                                              by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual
                                                                              file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
The applicant contests the rejection by the appointing auth-
                                                                              was kept regarding his professional future;
ority of his application for a post of Head of Unit, Grade A 3.
                                                                          — Award the applicant the sum of BEF 1 million, or such
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement:                 greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
                                                                              of the proceedings, in respect of compensation for his
— of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of the obligation                being rejected for that vacant post and, therefore, the loss
     to state reasons;                                                        of any chance of promotion;
— of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                                 — Order the defendant to pay the costs.
— of the promotion procedure and of the principle of equal
     treatment;                                                           Contentions and principal arguments
— of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                          are the same as those relied on in Case T-135/00 Morello v
The applicant also claims that the contested decision is vitiated         Commission.
by a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power.
Action brought on 19 May 2000 by Carmelo Morello                          Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt against
    against Commission of the European Communities                               the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-136/00)                                                          (Case T-143/00)
                         (2000/C 211/50)                                                          (2000/C 211/51)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 19 May             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by             European Communities on 25 May 2000 by Sylvia Haupt,
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels             residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Bar.                                                                      Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               — order the European Parliament to pay default interest on
                                                                              the secretarial allowances due but not paid, together with
— annul the decision of the selection board in internal                       such sum as the Court shall think fit in respect of the non-
    competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application submit-                   material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
    ted by the applicant;                                                     discriminatory conduct of the European Parliament in
                                                                              relation to her;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who was a category B                   Pleas in law and main arguments
member of the auxiliary staff from December 1996 and May
1997 and subsequently established as an official, contests the
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is challenging what she
refusal to accept her application to take part in internal
                                                                          regards as a reduction in her remuneration resulting from her
competition COM/TA/99 based on tests for the constitution
                                                                          transfer from the Court of Justice to the defendant institution.
of a reserve list of administrators and principal administrators.
                                                                          She claims that the reduction in question has arisen by virtue
                                                                          of the non-payment, in her new post, of the secretarial
The decision rejecting her application is based on the twofold            allowance. She is also challenging the fact that she has not
grounds that (i), contrary to point II(b) of the notice of                been promoted to grade B4 despite having been told by the
competition, she did not enter the service of the Commission              institution from which she moved that such promotion should
by no later than 1 February 1997 and (ii) that her professional           not present any problem, similar cases having previously
experience, gained in category B, could not be regarded as                arisen in the past.
being at a level equivalent to that required for the duties
performed, as described in point I of that notice.
                                                                          The applicant considers that it is more equitable to apply a
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           non-restrictive interpretation to the notion of remuneration.
                                                                          In her view, it is not appropriate to apply a literal interpretation
— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of                to the wording of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the
    assessment and a misuse of powers;                                    decisive factor being the amount received by the official or
                                                                          agent concerned at the end of the month.
— infringement of Articles 5 and 27 of the Staff Regulations;
    and                                                                   She also pleads infringement of Article 62 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
— the illegality of the notice of competition COM/TA/99.
Action brought on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli against
                    the European Parliament                                       Removal from the register of Case T-75/98 (1)
                         (Case T-144/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/53)
                         (2000/C 211/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 22 May 2000, the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              European Communities (single judge: Mr Vesterdorf) ruled that
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Case T-75/98 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the
on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli, residing at Dahlem                     European Communities be removed from the register.
(Luxembourg), represented by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand
Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of September 1999 reducing her
    remuneration;


title: Case T-51/09: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Antiche Terre (Arbitration clause — Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) — Contract concerning the project for the building in Umbertide (Italy) of an electricity generating plant using an innovative agro-forestry biomass combustion technology — Substantial amendment to the conditions for performance of the contract — Termination — Reimbursement of sums paid — Interest)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Antiche Terre
   (Case T-51/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Programme concerning the promotion of energy technologies for Europe (Thermie) - Contract concerning the project for the building in Umbertide (Italy) of an electricity generating plant using an innovative agro-forestry biomass combustion technology - Substantial amendment to the conditions for performance of the contract - Termination - Reimbursement of sums paid - Interest)
   2010/C 221/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V Joris, acting as Agent, and A. dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Defendant: Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola Cooperativa (Arezzo, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque and P. Van Leynseele, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC seeking an order that Antiche Terre reimburse the sums paid by the Community in performance of contract no BM/188/96 of 23 December 1996, concluded with three companies, including Antiche Terre, under the Thermie programme

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Antiche Terre Soc. Coop. rl Società Agricola Cooperativa to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 479 332,40, together with late-payment interest at the Italian statutory rate, calculated in accordance with the rates applicable from 4 January 2004 until payment in full of the debt, after deduction of the sum of EUR 461 979 recovered by the Commission following the implementation on 25 January 2005 of the bank guarantee of which it was beneficiary;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Antiche Terre to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC)

text:
C 173/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
       the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
       comply with European Parliament and Council Directive                      obligations laid down in Article 5(4) and (6), and
       97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives                            Article 10(1), in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1,
       92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the                          point 3, and Annex V 4(e), to Council Directive 91/676/EEC
       coordination of procedures for the award of public service                 of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
       contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts              against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,
       respectively, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-           the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       gations under that directive;                                              obligations under that directive;
2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 13 March 2001
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v
                           of 8 March 2001                                                           Schleswag AG (1)
in Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communi-                       (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to pur-
                                                                            chase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the
                                                                            resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the
                        Directive 91/676/EEC)                                                    free movement of goods)
                            (2001/C 173/30)                                                           (2001/C 173/31)
                      (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                            in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-379/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agents: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Kiel,
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            before that court between PreussenElektra AG and Schleswag
necessary to comply with Article 5(4) and (6) and Article 10(1),            AG in the presence of Windpark Reussenköge III GmbH and
in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1, point 3, and                   Land Schleswig-Holstein — on the interpretation of Article 30
Annex V 4(e) to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December                 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution                  Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375,                EC) and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC),
p. 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                          Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-             and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:                                      has given a judgment on 13 March 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-42/00: Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 149/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission                   the European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
   of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden                     T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et
                                                                       d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the European
                         (Case C-42/00)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 February 2000 by Société de
                                                                       Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles represented by
                        (2000/C 149/28)                                SCP Fourgoux & Associés, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                    Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Christina
Tufvesson, of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office        — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             T-45/96;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Pleas in law and main arguments
    Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996 on
    access to the groundhandling market at Community                   Infringement of essential procedural requirements and funda-
    airports the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its            mental rights, infringement of the Treaty and error of appraisal
    obligations under that directive;                                  of the facts and law as regards admissibility of the actions.
2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments
The binding nature of the provisions in the third paragraph of
Article 249 and Article 10 of the EC Treaty requires the               Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission
Member States to take the necessary measures to implement              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
the directive in national law within the period laid down. The                                        Spain
period laid down in Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC expired
on 25 October 1997 without Sweden having promulgated the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive.                                                (Case C-48/00)
(1) OJ L 272 of 25.10.96, p. 36.                                                                 (2000/C 149/30)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February
                                                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 14 February 2000 by Société de
Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1999 by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and                      1. declare that by failing to adopt, implement and notify
T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques                      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
et d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/41/EC (1)
                    European Communities                                   of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC,
                                                                           86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the
                       (Case C-44/00 P)                                    fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
                                                                           respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of
                                                                           animal origin, and certain products of plant origin, includ-
                        (2000/C 149/29)                                    ing fruit and vegetables, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
                                                                           to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, and,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            2. order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-383/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Sodiaal International

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Sodiaal International
   (Case C-383/14)
   2014/C 361/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Defendant: Sodiaal International

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (1), pursuant to which limitation becomes effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been suspended in accordance with Article 6(1) thereof, apply exclusively where the competent authority has not imposed any sanction within the meaning of Article 5 of the regulation, on the expiry of a period equal to twice the limitation period, or do they also apply in the absence of any administrative measure, for the purposes of Article 4 thereof, being taken within that period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, p. 1).


title: Case F-66/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 February 2016 — de Stefano v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/63

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 February 2016 — de Stefano v Commission
   (Case F-66/12) (1)

   (2016/C 098/82)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25/8/2012, p. 28.


title: Case T-120/15: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Proforec v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Focaccia di Recco col formaggio — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/43

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Proforec v Commission
   (Case T-120/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Registration of a protected geographical indication - Focaccia di Recco col formaggio - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 098/57)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Proforec Srl (Recco, Italy) (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/39 of 13 January 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (PGI)) (OJ 2015 L 8, p. 7).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio.

               3.

               Proforec Srl shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission other than those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

               4.

               Proforec, the Commission, the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-222/06: Action brought on 14 August 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/14

         Action brought on 14 August 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-222/06)
   (2006/C 249/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul Memorandum No 04673 of 6 June 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Piemonte (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

               —

               annul all related and prior measures and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1)

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case C-420/05 P: Appeal brought on  28 November 2005  by Ricosmos B.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) on  13 September 2005  in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/12

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) on 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-420/05 P)
   (2006/C 48/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V., represented by J.J.M. Hertoghs and J.H. Peek, of the law firm Hertoghs Advocaten-Belastingkundigen, Parkstraat 8, (4818 SK) Breda, Netherlands, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 13 September 2005;

               —

               grant the application made at first instance for the annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 stating that remission of import duties in favour of the present appellant was not justified;

               —

               alternatively, remit the case to the Court of First Instance for further consideration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its appeal against the aforementioned judgment, the appellant makes the following submissions:

               1.

               The appellant takes the view that the Court of First Instance proceeded on the basis of an incorrect, or at any rate unduly restricted, interpretation of, in particular, Articles 905 to 909 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (1) with regard to the procedure for the repayment and/or remission of customs duties. The principle of legal certainty requires that the legal situation of Ricosmos should have been foreseeable in this particular case. Ricosmos takes the view that, because of suspensions of the proceedings of which it was not informed, that was not the case here. The Court of First Instance also proceeded incorrectly on the basis of an overly restricted view of the rights of the defence, reflected in its excessively circumscribed interpretation of the right to timeous and full access to the case files (both that of the national customs authorities and that of the Commission):

               2.

               The appellant considers that the decision of the Court of First Instance is also at variance with Community law. It takes the view that the principle of legal certainty also implies that the criteria for determining that there was no obvious negligence must be clear and readily identifiable. It is precisely because of the considerable flexibility of the term 'obvious negligence' that those criteria ought in principle to be construed restrictively and individually. The negligence must be evident and essential and must also be in a clear causal relationship with the special situation which has been established. In this case, the Court of First Instance wrongly attached in this regard no, or not enough, weight to the complexity of the legislation and to the significant professional experience of the appellant, and also misconstrued a number of obligations on the appellant, or at any rate appraised them in an overly formalistic manner;

               3.

               The appellant is also of the view that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and that the Court of First Instance also attached no, or at any rate insufficient, weight to new facts which suggested that the customs duties charged ought to have been cancelled;

               4.

               In conclusion, the appellant expresses the view that the establishment by the Court of First Instance of the facts underlying the dispute was in part erroneous or in any event incomplete.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-387/95)

text:
No C 31 / 16          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 2 . 96
Action brought on 8 December 1995 by the Commission of                       the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of
         the European Communities against Ireland                            insurance undertakings ( 1 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                       ( Case C-387/95 )                                     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
                                                                             the said Directive;
                           ( 96/C 31 /32 )
                                                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service , acting as               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               in Case C-387/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit laid down by the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                      Directive expired on 1 January 1994 .
Kirchberg.
                                                                       H OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 7 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) See p. 16 of this Official Journal .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that by failing to notify the laws , regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 91 /674/EEC (') of 19 December 1991 on the
     annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance
     undertakings or by failing to adopt the measures                  Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission
     necessary to comply with it, Ireland has failed to fulfil its               of the European Communities against Ireland
     obligations under that Directive;                                                             Case C-394/95
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                                                ( 96/C 31 /34 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 1 5 December 1 995
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall            by the Commission of the European Communities,
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, and
Member State , carries by implication an obligation on the             Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal Service, acting as
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January               office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner .
1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission .                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 7 .
                                                                        1 . declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 ( x ) on
                                                                              the implementation of the Agreement between the
                                                                              European Economic Community and the Swiss
                                                                              Confederation concerning direct insurance other than
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the Commission                          life assurance or by failing to adopt the measures
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            necessary to comply with the said Directive, Ireland has
                               Belgium                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive ;
                        ( Case C-393/95 )
                                                                        2 . order Ireland to pay the costs.
                            ( 96/C 31 /33 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice on 15 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, under which a directive shall
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
 Dimitrios Gouloussis , acting as Agent, with an address for            Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
 service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz,            Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
 Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                        down in the Directive . That period expired on 4 July 1993
                                                                        without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           comply with the Directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                        the Commission .
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt, alternatively to
     communicate to the Commission , within the prescribed
                                                                         (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .
      timelimit the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures necessary in order to comply fully with
      Council Directive 91 /674/EEC of 10 December 1991 on