title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2002 in Case C-347/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n 3 de Orense): Ángel Barreira Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 1(r) and (s) and 46(2) — Award of pension rights — Periods of insurance completed before the materialisation of the risk — Periods of notional contribution)

text:
C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23.11.2002
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                     Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                          of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
from restricting or disallowing the deductibility for income tax            M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
purposes of contributions to voluntary pension schemes paid to              judgment on 1 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
pension providers in other Member States while allowing such
contributions to be deducted when they are paid to institutions in the      The rules on jurisdiction laid down in the Convention of 27 September
first-mentioned Member State, if that legislation does not at the           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
same time preclude taxation of the pensions paid by the abovemen-           Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, as amended by the
tioned pension providers.                                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                            Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24. 6. 2000.                                               Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May
                                                                            1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                            Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                            Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a preventive
                                                                            action brought by a consumer protection organisation for the purpose
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of preventing a trader from using terms considered to be unfair in
                                                                            contracts with private individuals is a matter relating to tort, delict or
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that convention.
                         of 1 October 2002                                  (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninfor-
                 mation v Karl Heinz Henkel (1)
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive
action by associations — Consumer protection organisation                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair
                   terms in consumer contracts)                                                        (First Chamber)
                           (2002/C 289/03)                                                           of 3 October 2002
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-347/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Juzgado de lo Social n 3 de Orense): Ángel Barreira
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS),
                    in the European Court Reports)                               Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)
                                                                            (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 1(r) and (s)
In Case C-167/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                 and 46(2) — Award of pension rights — Periods of
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             insurance completed before the materialisation of the risk —
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                  Periods of notional contribution)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Verein                                            (2002/C 289/04)
für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel, on
the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          in the European Court Reports)
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and                    In Case C-347/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the                    EC by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Orense (Spain) for
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 ---pagebreak--- 23.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/3
court between Ángel Barreira Pérez and Instituto Nacional                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la
Seguridad Social (TGSS), on the interpretation of Article 1(r)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
and (s) and Article 46(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                            of 3 October 2002
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),                   in Case C-47/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President                                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC on the disposal
3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                                    of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls
                                                                                (PCB/PCT))
                                                                                (2002/C 289/05)
1.    The proper construction of Article 1(r) of Council Regulation                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
      social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      persons and to members of their families moving within the                             in the European Court Reports)
      Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
      (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, is that additional
      periods such as those provided for by Spanish legislation,
      attributed when pension rights are awarded in order to take
                                                                          In Case C-47/01, Commission of the European Communities
      account of rights which were in the course of being acquired
                                                                          (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
      under previous old-age insurance schemes which have now             Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      been discontinued, are to be regarded as periods of insurance       draw up, or in any event to communicate to the Commission,
      within the meaning of that regulation.                              the plan, outline and summary of the inventory provided for
                                                                          in Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
                                                                          16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
                                                                          biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
                                                                          L 243, p. 31), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
2.    The proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) of Regulation           obligations under those provisions of the directive, the Court
      No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
                                                                          Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
      No 118/97, is that additional periods such as those provided
                                                                          Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      for by Spanish legislation, attributed when pension rights are
                                                                          given a judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it:
      awarded in order to take account of rights which were in the
      course of being acquired under previous old-age insurance
      schemes which have now been discontinued, are to be taken           1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed
      into account in the calculation of the actual amount of the               period, a summary of the inventories of equipment with PCB
      pension.                                                                  volumes of more than 5 dm3, a plan for the decontamination
                                                                                and/or disposal of the inventoried equipment and the PCBs
                                                                                contained therein, and an outline for the collection and
                                                                                subsequent disposal of equipment which is not subject to
                                                                                inventory in accordance with Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council
                                                                                Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
                                                                                polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/
                                                                                PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                under those provisions of that directive;
                                                                          2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-69/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11.A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Costs not charged by the taxable person)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/11

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-69/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11.A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Costs not charged by the taxable person)
   2012/C 73/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Connoisseur Belgium BVBA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Interpretation of Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Hiring-out of pleasure craft — Agreement on the allocation of costs between the undertaking providing the craft for hire and the undertaking which hires them — Possibility of charging certain costs to the hiring undertaking — No charge made — National provision requiring VAT to be paid on those costs which are not charged

      Operative part of the order

   Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, value added tax is not due on costs or amounts which could contractually have been charged to the other contracting party but which were not so charged.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-467/08: Action brought on 17 October 2008 — ISDIN v OHIM — Pfizer (ISDIN)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

         Action brought on 17 October 2008 — ISDIN v OHIM — Pfizer (ISDIN)
   (Case T-467/08)
   (2009/C 6/73)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 July 2008 in case R 1031/2007-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ISDIN’ for goods in classes 3 and 5 — application No 3 288 339

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Irish trade mark registration No 64 939 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 824978 of the word mark ‘ISTIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its findings that the trade marks concerned are similar, that the goods in question were hardly similar and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-396/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/45

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Commission v TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz
   (Case T-396/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/87)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Action brought on 30 March 1998 by Anne Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega Guerra against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-51/98)

text:
13.6.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/11
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                     The applicants are all members of the JET project team
                                                                     employed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
                                                                     Authority. This application is made consequent to the
                                                                     judgment of the Court in Joined Cases T-177/94 and 377/
                                                                     94 (1). The Commission was the defendant in those cases
                                                                     and the Council participated as intervener. In the
Action brought on 12 February 1998 by Henk Altmann                   judgment, the statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking and
and Others against the European Commission and the                   associated supplementary rules and administrative
               Council of the European Union                         practices were ruled to be illegal in so far as they resulted
                                                                     in unequal treatment of the applicants and the temporary
                       (Case T-30/98)
                                                                     employees of the Communities working together as
                        (98/C 184/21)                                members of the JET Project Team at Culham. Two
                                                                     decisions of the Commission were therefore annulled.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     The applicants now submit firstly that the Commission
An action against the European Commission and the                    has not acted to comply with the judgment by adopting
Council of the European Union was brought before the                 measures to replace the annulled decisions in the light of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               the judgment and secondly that the Council has not
12 February 1998 by Henk Altmann and Others,                         amended the statutes. Furthermore, the current proposal
represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson                 for amendment of the statutes does not purport to address
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Offices             the unlawful inequality of treatment found in the
of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2, Place Winston Churchill.             judgment in respect of the applicants. The Commission,
                                                                     the JET Council and the JET management have not
                                                                     altered either the supplementary rules or the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                     administrative practices ruled to be unlawful in the
                                                                     judgment and none of the proposals either to take
Ð declare that the rejection of the applicants' complaint            practical steps or to offer a financial settlement are based
    whereby the Commission and the Council failed to                 on the principles laid down in the judgment and the
    take any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants to          decisions of the Court. The applicants therefore submit
    implement the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases              that the failure of both the Commission and the Council
    T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.                      to act constitutes a clear breach of Article 149 of the
    Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a                 Euratom Treaty and a service-related fault sounding in
    service-related fault for which the Commission and the           damages to the extent that such failure has caused the
    Council are liable;                                              applicants material or non-material loss.
Ð order the Commission and the Council to pay the                    (1) Altmann and Others v. Commission [1996] ECR II-2041.
    applicants:
    (a) the individual sums set out in the schedule,
         modified to the date of judgment; and, in the
         event that no order is made in respect of the
         applicants' liability for UK taxation on such
         sums,                                                       Action brought on 30 March 1998 by Anne Ruth Burrill
                                                                     and Alberto Noriega Guerra against the Commission of
    (b) such further sum as may represent:                                            the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-51/98)
         (i)   the sum payable by the applicants in respect
               of UK taxation, the quantification of such                                    (98/C 184/22)
               sums being adjourned pending negotiation
               between the parties and the UK tax
               authorities; alternatively                                           (Language of the case: French)
         (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants
               are liable to the UK tax authorities, the
               Council and the Commission being liable to            An action against the Commission of the European
               indemnify the applicants in respect of any            Communities was brought before the Court of First
               such contingent liability; and                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 March 1998
                                                                     by Anne Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega Guerra
                                                                     residing in RosieÁres (Belgium), represented by Georges
Ð Order the Commission and the Council to bear the                   Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Marie-Ange Marx, of the
    costs of these proceedings.                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.6.98
the offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                  regard to the purpose for which so-called maternity leave'
Cessange.                                                            was introduced and interpreted the wording of Article 58
                                                                     in a manner inconsistent with its aims.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                     If Article 58 of the Staff Regulations does not authorise
                                                                     the joint exercise of the right to share maternity leave by
1. annul the appointing authority's decision of 24                   common accord, the applicants claim, in the alternative,
     February 1998 refusing the applicants' request of               that that provision is discriminatory and therefore
     1 December 1997 that they, mother and father of the             unlawful.
     child born to them, be permitted to share a part of the
     postnatal leave provided for by Article 58 of the Staff
                                                                     Also in the alternative, they claim that the Commission
     Regulations in the form of half-time work, according
                                                                     failed to have regard to the interest of the service by
     to the time-table drawn up by them for that purpose;
                                                                     refusing to grant the post-natal leave to the applicants
                                                                     jointly in so far as that implies that it considered it to be
2. award the applicants damages quantified on a fair and             preferable for the mother to be absent from her
     equitable basis in the sum of BF 500 000 by way of              department for at least 16 weeks.
     compensation for the harm suffered;
                                                                     As regards the application for damages, the applicants
                                                                     point out that if the Court considers Article 58 of the Staff
3. order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Regulations to be unlawful, the institution cannot give
                                                                     effect to it, which would enable them to share the post-
                                                                     natal leave. It therefore remains only to hold that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     contested decision was vitiated by error and that it caused
                                                                     the applicants harm which should be made good.
The applicants explain that they both work for the
European Communities. On 12 February 1998 their child
was born. In the light of the arrival of their child, the
applicants submitted a joint request for permission to
share, in the form of half-time employment, a part of the
post-natal leave provided for by Article 58 of the Staff             Action brought on 1 April 1998 by the European
Regulations of Officials. The defendant institution refused          Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
that request on the ground that Article 58 specifically                (UEAPME) against the Council of the European Union
refers to pregnant women in order better to protect their
health and that sharing that leave would therefore run                                       (Case T-55/98)
counter to the provisions of the Staff Regulations.                                           (98/C 184/23)
The applicants consider that decision to be unlawful in so                           (Language of the case: French)
far as it interprets Article 58 of the Staff Regulations in a
manner which is not consistent with its purpose and, by
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
doing so, infringes that provision. In the case of a normal
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
pregnancy and delivery, the mother does not need 16
                                                                     Communities on 1 April 1998 by the European
weeks in order to recover and regain her normal
                                                                     Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
physiological and physical functions enabling her to
                                                                     (UEAPME), established at Brussels, represented by Francis
restart work. Maternity leave is therefore, for the greater
                                                                     Herbert and Daniel Tomasevic, of the Brussels Bar, with
part, designed in the interests of the child which, during
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
the early stages of its life, requires the full attendance of
                                                                     Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
its parents in order to receive care, affection, attention and
constant supervision. The applicants consider it
indisputable that the father of a child can attend to all            The applicant claims that the Court should:
those tasks, which are in no way specific or particular to
women. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that
Article 58 grants a right to the mother which she may                Ð annul Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December
exercise in the manner determined by her, in agreement                    1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-
with the child's father, and having regard to the interests               time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
of the service. That is the only interpretation consistent                ETUC;
with the purpose of that provision, in the light of general
principles, secondary legislation, case-law and national             Ð annul the said directive only in so far as it applies to
law in the Member States.                                                 the small and medium-sized enterprises mentioned in
                                                                          Article 2(2) of the Agreement on social policy;
The applicants claim that by denying the father the right
to take leave in order to care for the child, in agreement           Ð make a ruling as to the temporary continuation of the
with the mother, the defendant institution failed to have                 annulled provision pending the adoption of a new


title: Case T-415/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — IMRO v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/40

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — IMRO v Commission
   (Case T-415/08)
   (2008/C 313/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (The) — Eagras um Chearta Cheolta (IMRO) (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer and D. Collins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698-CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by the authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed an error of assessment, infringed the Article 81 EC and violated its obligation to state reasons foreseen by Article 253 EC by deciding that the parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish that the parallel conduct is not the result of normal competitive condition but constitutes such a concerted practice. The applicant further states that the presence of the delineation clause in all of its reciprocal agreements is justified by the interest of its members.
   Second, in the alternative, the applicant argues that, contrary to the findings of the contested decision, the territorial delineation by CISAC societies in their reciprocal representation agreements is not restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC because it concerns a form of competition that is not worthy of protection. Nevertheless, to the extent that the alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations should be considered to restrict competition, the applicant claims that it cannot be considered illegal or infringing Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective of protecting the rights of the societies' members and the authors.


title: Case C-301/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Article 1(5) — Protection of animals during transport — Transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by an animal protection association — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Directive 90/425/EEC — Article 12 — Concept of ‘dealers engaging in intra-Community trade’)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V. v Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein
   (Case C-301/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Article 1(5) - Protection of animals during transport - Transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by an animal protection association - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Directive 90/425/EEC - Article 12 - Concept of ‘dealers engaging in intra-Community trade’))
   (2016/C 038/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn e.V.

      Defendant: Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

      Intervener: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers an activity, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by a charitable association in order to hand over those dogs to persons who have undertaken to adopt them after payment by those persons of a sum covering, in principle, the costs incurred for that purpose by that association.

               2.

               The concept of ‘dealers engaging in intra-Community trade’ within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zoo technical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, as amended by Council Directive 92/60/EEC of 30 June 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers inter alia, a charitable association which transports stray dogs from one Member State to another in order to give those dogs to persons who have agreed to adopt them after they have paid a sum covering in principle the costs incurred for that purpose by that association.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-591/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Canal + group v OHIM — Euronews (News+) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark News+ — Earlier national word mark ACTU+ — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/50

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Canal + group v OHIM — Euronews (News+)
   (Case T-591/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark News+ - Earlier national word mark ACTU+ - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Canal + group (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: L. Barissat and R. Joseph, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Euronews (Écully, France) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2013 (Case R 1533/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Canal + group and Canal + France and, on the other hand, Euronews.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Canal + group to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-489/08: Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Power-One Italy v Commission

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/41

         Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Power-One Italy v Commission
   (Case T-489/08)
   (2009/C 6/81)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Power-One Italy SpA (Terranova, Bracciolini, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida, lawyer, A. Guissani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, order the European Commission to compensate Power One Italy SpA for all the loss suffered and quantified in the amount of EUR 2 876 188,99 or, in the alternative, the cost incurred for the PNEUMA project or, in the further alternative, such amount as the Court considers just and appropriate;

               —

               In the event of the applicant's being successful, order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action concerns the decision to end the project known as ‘Pneuma’ and to recover the amount granted in advance to finance it. The purpose of that project was the creation of an innovative UPS system for the supply, through the use of an appropriate reserve of compressed air, of energy for the installations of the radio equipment serving as bases for cellular telephone networks. In order to carry out the project, the applicant concluded an agreement with strategic partners, in particular with the University of Florence, which was responsible for the planning and development of the practical aspects of the project and testing the prototypes of the new system, with ENEA and FEBE ECOLOGIC, for the environmental studies of the new UPS, and with TELEFONICA MOVILES, which made available a number of radio equipment bases in Spain in order to allow for the testing of prototypes in actual operational conditions.
   Pursuant to the aforementioned decision of the Commission, the applicant had to reimburse the full amount received by way of advance financing and, in addition, was placed in the position of having to answer to its own strategic partners who had brought claims for compensation. In any event, Power One completed and delivered the project using its own funds, on the basis of a legitimate expectation that the Commission would continue to grant extensions, thereby incurring costs of EUR 2 876 188,99 and delivering the fully operational and functioning equipment in Spain as stipulated in agreements with the defendant and the partners.
   The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its action:

               —

               Infringement of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (1).

               —

               Inapplicability of Article 14 of the Standard administrative provisions Life — nature, in so far as the applicant has always acted properly and consistently in a spirit of cooperation and has always responded promptly to each of the Commission's requests. Moreover, the ‘Pneuma’ project was realised in full, made functional and tested.

               —

               Discriminatory nature of the decision in question and infringement of the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  OJ L 192, 28.7.2000, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004 in Case T-16/03: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Procedural irregularities — Statement of reasons — Annulment of report — Damages for loss sustained)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 September 2004
   in Case T-16/03: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Procedural irregularities - Statement of reasons - Annulment of report - Damages for loss sustained)
   (2004/C 300/77)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-16/03: Albano Ferrer de Moncada, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, annulment of the applicant's staff report for the period 1995/1997 and, second, damages, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, J. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the applicant's staff report for the period 1995/1997;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case C-428/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of  21 November 2005  in Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-428/05)
   (2006/C 36/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
   Is a refund within the meaning of Article 11(3), subparagraph 1, first sentence, of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) unduly paid and thus to be reimbursed, where the beneficiary presents the documents supporting payment only in the course of the procedure for repayment and after expiry of the time-limits set out in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1 (amended, OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12).


title: Case C-619/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Trade Agency Limited v Seramico Investments Limited

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Trade Agency Limited v Seramico Investments Limited
   (Case C-619/10)
   2011/C 72/25
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Latvijas Republikas Augstâkâs tiesas Senâts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trade Agency Limited

      Defendant: Seramico Investments Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a decision of a foreign court is accompanied by the certificate provided for in Article 54 of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), but the defendant nevertheless objects on the ground that he was not served with notice of the action brought in the Member State of origin, is a court in the Member State where enforcement is sought competent, when considering a ground for withholding recognition provided for in Article 34(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, to examine for itself the conformity with the evidence of the information contained in the certificate? Is such wide jurisdiction on the part of a court in the Member State in which enforcement is sought compatible with the principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice set out in recitals 16 and 17 to Regulation No 44/2001?

               2.

               Is a decision given in default of appearance, which disposes of the substance of a dispute without examining either the subject-matter of the claim or the grounds on which it is based and sets out no reasoning as to the substantive basis of the claim, compatible with Article 47 of the Charter and does it not infringe the defendant’s right to a fair hearing, laid down by the provision?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-467/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2014  — Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — World market in aluminium fluoride — Rights of the defence — Content of the statement of objections — Calculation of the amount of the fine — 2006 guidelines for the calculation of fines — Point 18 — Total value of sales of goods or services in relation to the infringement — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time period — Reduction of the amount of the fine)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) v European Commission
   (Case C-467/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Rights of the defence - Content of the statement of objections - Calculation of the amount of the fine - 2006 guidelines for the calculation of fines - Point 18 - Total value of sales of goods or services in relation to the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time period - Reduction of the amount of the fine))
   (2015/C 046/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (represented by: P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case C-284/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Telefónica de España, S.A. v Administración del Estado

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2010 — Telefónica de España, S.A. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-284/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telefónica de España, S.A

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Question referred

   Does Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services and, in particular, Article 6 thereof, permit Member States to charge holders of general authorisations an annual fee which is calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income invoiced in the relevant year, subject to such amount not exceeding two per thousand, and which is applied for the purpose of defraying the costs, including management costs, incurred by the telecommunications regulatory body in the implementation of the scheme of licences and general authorisations, as provided for in Article 71 of Law 11/1998 of 24 April 1998 on telecommunications?

      (1)  OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.


title: Case T-411/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Herbillon v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Herbillon v Commission
   (Case T-411/03) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 108/28)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georges Herbillon (Arlon, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, firstly, annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002, setting the applicant's final classification at Grade A7, step 3, and, secondly, annulment of the Commission's decision of 29 July 2003, rejecting the applicant's complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-336/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that court of 26 January 2000 in the case of Republic of Austria against Martin Huber

text:
C 335/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
     The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance,         (a)   if so, does Article 73 in conjunction with Article 75 of
     which does not have to interpret French law but only to                 Regulation No 1408/71, having regard also to Article 10a
     apply it in appropriate cases, committed an obvious error               and to the fact that the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen
     in holding that the Parliament’s argument that it could                 hoidon tuesta is not mentioned in Annex IIa of the
     negotiate with self-employed taxi drivers without causing               regulation, impose an obligation to pay home childcare
     them to infringe French legislation was ‘credible’. The                 allowance in respect of a child in the family of an
     Court of First Instance had to find that the Parliament                 employee posted temporarily to another Member State,
     failed to take any steps with the French authorities                    even in a case where the condition concerning actual
     to obtain information, claiming that it was for those                   residence which is a condition for receipt of the benefit
     authorities to approach the Parliament and for the self-                under national legislation is not satisfied, as a conse-
     employed taxi drivers to comply with the legislation in                 quence of which the choice referred to in the law between
     the performance of the contract, without concerning                     a day-care place organised by the local authority and
     itself with the possibility that the call for tenders might             home child-care allowance is not possible to make or has
     have an effect in breach of the legislation.                            not in fact been made;
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements (insuf-         (b) if not, does Community law impose an obligation on
     ficient statement of reasons).                                          another ground to pay home child-care allowance in
—    Error in assessing the plea in law claiming discrimination.             another Member State in the situation described in
                                                                             point (a)?
—    After the revelations in the defence, AICS was justified in
     requesting the Court of First Instance to hold that the
     condition appearing in the notice concerning three years’         (1) Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     business had been infringed, and the plea in law raised on            cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                           employed persons and to members of their families moving
     that point by AICS should have been accepted.                         within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971, p. 416).
—    Since it has been shown that the Parliament established
     an unlawful system of working to the benefit of self-
     employed taxi drivers and to the detriment of AICS
     carrying on the business at a large discount enabling it to
     submit its offer, the conditions for holding the institution
     liable and awarding compensation to a private person
     suffering loss are met.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
                                                                       court of 26 January 2000 in the case of Republic of
                                                                                Austria against Martin Huber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslau-
takunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the                                         (Case C-336/00)
                  case of Päivikki Maaheimo
                                                                                (2000/C 335/57)
                        (Case C-333/00)
                        (2000/C 335/56)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 26 January
European Communities by an order of the Tarkastuslautakunta            2000, received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2000,
(Social Security Review Tribunal), Finland, of 31 May 2000,            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Republic of Austria
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 September               against Martin Huber on the following questions:
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo
on the following questions:                                            1.    Was Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June
                                                                             1992 on agricultural production methods compatible
Does home child-care allowance under the Laki lasten kotihoi-                with the requirements of the protection of the environ-
don ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law on home child-care                      ment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992
allowance and private child-care allowance, 1128/1996) fall                  L 215, p. 85) validly adopted?
within the material scope of Community law as a family
benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Council               2.    Does a decision on the approval of a programme under
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-                    Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-              30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods com-
employed persons and to members of their families moving                     patible with the requirements of the protection of the
within the Community (1), as amended and updated by Council                  environment and the maintenance of the countryside also
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and amended                       encompass the content of the programmes submitted by
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989;                   the Member States for approval?
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 335/33
3.    Are farmers who apply for aid under that programme                2.    order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs of the
      also to be regarded as persons to whom the decision is                  proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
      addressed and is the form of the notification chosen in                 Court of Justice.
      that regard, in particular the obligation on the Member
      States to provide farmers with appropriate information,
      sufficient to make the decision binding on those farmers
      and any conflicting contracts granting support ineffec-           Pleas in law and main arguments
      tive?
                                                                        —     Infringements of          Article 81(1)    EC     (previously
4.    May a farmer in this instance, irrespective of the content              Article 85(1) EC):
      of the programme within the meaning of Regulation
      No 2078/92 approved by the Commission, rely on the                      —     The Court of First Instance wrongly regards the
      statements of the administrative bodies of the Member                         restricting of the bonus for sales outside the contract
      States so that a claim for recovery is precluded?                             territory to a maximum of 15 % of overall sales as
                                                                                incompatible with Article 81(1) EC. A dealer who
5.    Are the Member States free under Regulation No 2078/92                        sells a vehicle in a territory which does not belong
      to implement programmes within the meaning of that                            to his contract territory has in general substantially
      regulation either by private-sector measures (contracts)                      fewer expenses in respect of the sale as such and
      or by forms of State action?                                                  post-sales service than in the case of a sale in his
                                                                                own contract territory. The disadvantage in terms
6.    In assessing whether restrictions on the possibilities of                     of bonus therefore corresponds to an economic
      claiming recovery on grounds of the protection of                             advantage and the bonus rules therefore had no
      legitimate expectations and legal certainty accord with                       anti-competitive ‘object’ and no restrictive ‘effect’ on
      the interests of Community law, is only the respective                        competition. Contrary to the view of the Court of
      form of action to be taken into account or also the                           First Instance, the 15 % rule was in any event
      possibilities of claiming recovery which exist in other                       exempted through Regulation 123/85 in accordance
      forms of action and particularly favour the Community                         with Article 81(3) EC. It reflects the particular
      interests?                                                                    responsibility which a dealer bears for his own
                                                                                contract territory.
                                                                              —     The ‘restrictions in supply’ to the Italian market,
                                                                                which the Court of First Instance took into account,
                                                                                does not fall within the scope of the prohibition on
                                                                                cartels in Article 81(1) EC, since it is a unilateral
                                                                                measure. The restrictions found by the Court were
Appeal brought on 14 September 2000 by Volkswagen                                   not in any event intended by the dealers and, if such
AG against the judgment delivered on 6 July 2000 by the                             restrictions existed, they were of a unilateral nature.
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-62/98 between Volks-                     —     Infringements of Regulation No 17:
                wagen AG and the Commission
                                                                              —     The taking into account of the 15 % bonus rule
                        (Case C-338/00 P)                                           when setting the fine infringes Article 15(5)(a) of
                                                                                Regulation No 17: when the 1985 version of Regu-
                         (2000/C 335/58)                                            lation No 27 applied, there was no specific form
                                                                                in which the Commission was to be notified of
                                                                                subsequent amendments to notified agreements and,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 July 2000 by                          as a result of ‘Complementary Note’ VI, first para-
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                            graph, a communication in any form to the Com-
European Communities in Case T-62/98 between Volkswagen                             mission had the legal quality of a notification.
AG and the Commission has been brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 14 September 2000
by Volkswagen AG, represented by Professor Dr. Rainer                         —     The Court’s findings as to the intentional nature of
Bechtold, Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, with an address                      the infringement do not satisfy the requirements of
for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of De Bandt, Van                          Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17: that provision
Hecke, Lagae and Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hemmer, 1011                                   requires a precise finding as to which persons acted
Luxembourg.                                                                         in which capacity, why that action is to be attributed
                                                                                to the appellant, and that the elements of fault are
                                                                                also to be attributed to the appellant. Even in the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                         case of legal persons the existence of fault on their
                                                                                part must, in truth, depend on the acts of the natural
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                         persons in each case. Even if it were to be argued
      (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/98 (1) and                       that an undertaking is liable for the conduct of all
      declare void the Commission Decision of 28 January                            persons who act in its sphere of activity and
      1998 (Case IV/35.733 — VW),                                                   responsibility, there must at least be a finding that


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-265/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta suprema di cassazione): Frahuil SA v Assitalia SpA (Brussels Convention — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1) — Meaning of "matters relating to a contract" — Contract of guarantee entered into without the knowledge of the principal debtor — Subrogation of the guarantor to the rights of the creditor — Right of recourse of the guarantor against the principal debtor)

text:
3.4.2004                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/9
2.    Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/            The first sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(1)(f) of Commission
      50, must be interpreted as precluding a person who has                   Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down
      participated in a contract award procedure from being regarded           detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and
      as having lost his interest in obtaining the contract on the             milk products should be interpreted as meaning that the stock
      ground that, before seeking the review provided for by the               accounts which producers are required to keep need state only the
      Directive, he failed to refer the case to a conciliation committee       quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products
      such as Bundes-Vergabekontrollkommission (Federal Public                 sold.
      Procurement Review Commission, established by the Bundesge-
      setz über die Vergabe von Aufträgen (Bundesvergabegesetz)
      1997 (1997 Federal Law on Public Procurement).                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 February 2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               in Case C-265/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Corta suprema di cassazione): Frahuil SA v Assitalia
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                SpA (1)
                        of 12 February 2004                                    (Brussels Convention — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)
                                                                               — Meaning of ‘matters relating to a contract’ — Contract
                                                                               of guarantee entered into without the knowledge of the
in Case C-236/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      principal debtor — Subrogation of the guarantor to the
the College van Beroep): J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel (1)                     rights of the creditor — Right of recourse of the guarantor
                                                                                against the principal debtor)
(Milk and milk products — Direct sales — Reference
quantity — Overruns — Additional levy on milk — Obli-                                                     (2004/C 85/13)
gation on producer to keep stock accounts — Contents —
Interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                   93)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2004/C 85/12)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                             In Case C-265/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
                    in the European Court Reports)                             enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by
                                                                               the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               in the proceedings pending before that court between Frahuil
                                                                               SA and Assitalia SpA, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of
                                                                               the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ
In Case C-236/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-                   9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
before that court between J. Slob and Productschap Zuivel, on                  Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended version —
the interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Commission Regulation                 p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules                     accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk                     by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth                 L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken                     (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                    C. W. A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger,
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator Registrar, has                  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                   on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 85/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               3.4.2004
Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction          of initiating a procedure for that purpose without having
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,            shown that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October          C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention         P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows:                         on 5 February 2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which subjects
‘matters relating to a contract’ do not cover the obligation which a
                                                                                the marketing of food products for sportsmen and women
guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by
                                                                                lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to
the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of
                                                                                a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and of
subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of
                                                                                initiating a procedure for that purpose without having shown
recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a
                                                                                that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian Republic has
party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;
that contract.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                of 12 February 2004
in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sports-
men and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in                          (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
   other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)                      to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/
                                                                             EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and
                                                                             rationalising reports on the implementation of certain direc-
                            (2004/C 85/14)
                                                                                tives relating to the environment)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2004/C 85/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello
Stato) with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application                In Case C-406/02, Commission of the European Communities
for a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation which            (Agent: B. Stromsky) with an address for service in Luxem-
subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen and                    bourg, v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovitz) with
women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member                     an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a
States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and              declaration that, by failing to communicate to it, within the


title: Case C-377/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2007 — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2007 — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim
   (Case C-377/07)
   (2007/C 283/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: STEKO Industriemontage GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim
   Question referred
   Does Article 56 EC preclude a provision of a Member State according to which a prohibition on the deduction of reductions in profit in connection with the holding of a capital company in another capital company enters into force earlier with regard to foreign holdings than with regard to domestic (German) holdings?


title: Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-151/96)

text:
 8 . 2 . 97            1 hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40/ 19
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Mutual Aid
                                                                        Administration Services NV against Commission of the
                        of 12 December 1996
                                                                                European Communities
in       Case   T-3 80/94 :     Association  Internationale   des                               ( Case T-151 /96 )
Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques                                      ( 97/C 40/47 )
et de Soie Naturelle (AIUFFASS ) v. Commission of the
                    European Communities (')
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 (Action for annulment — State aid — Textiles — Trade
association — Admissibility — Manifest error of
                  assessment — Excess capacity)                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                             ( 97/C 40/46 )                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                                                                        1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of
                                                                        Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the
                                                                        Antwerp Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                  (Language of the case: French)                        at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
In       Case   T-380/94 :      Association  Internationale   des
Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthetiques
et de Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), established at Ghent                 — annul the contested decision, a copy of which is
( Belgium ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance                        included among the documents annexed to the present
( AKT ), established in London , represented by Michel                       application , and accordingly rule that the applicant is
Waelbroeck and Jules Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    not obliged to pay dispatch costs to the Georgian
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         authorities,
Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission
of the European Communities, (Agents: initially Jean-Paul               — order the Commission of the European Communities
Keppenne and Ben Smulders, subsequently Xavier Lewis                        to pay to the applicant the sum of US $ 6 014,02, plus
and Ben Smulders ), supported by United Kingdom of                           interest calculated on the basis of the current statutory
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ( Agents: Lindsey                        interest rate in Belgium of 7% per annum as from
Nicoll and, at the hearing, Richard Plender QC) — for                        1 September 1996 ,
annulment of the Commission decision of 31 May 1994 ,
reproduced in Commission Notice 94/C 271 /06 ,
authorizing the Government of the United Kingdom under                  — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of the EC Treaty to grant aid of            proceedings.
£ 61 million in favour of Hualon Corporation for the
setting up of a textile producing plant in Northern Ireland
( OJ No C 271 , 29 . 9 . 1994, p. 5 ) — the Court of First              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcia
Valdecasas, President, K. Lenaerts , V. Tilli , J. Azizi and M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio-Gonzalez, Administrator,                On 12 March 1996 , the Commission adopted Regulation
gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , the operative part                ( EC ) No 449/96 on the transport for the free supply to
of which is as follows :                                                Armenia and Azerbaijan of fruit juice, fruit jams and
                                                                        common wheat flour.
                                                                        Transport of one of the consignments via Georgia was
1 . The application is dismissed.                                       awarded to the applicant by a Commission Decision of
                                                                        27 March 1996 . A ten-point annex was appended to the
                                                                        document awarding the contract, containing extracts from
                                                                        the Agreement between the European Community and the
2 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and              Georgian authorities . Following delivery, the Commission
       jointly and severally to pay the Commission 's costs.            sent an invoice to the applicant relating, inter alia, to
                                                                        dispatch costs payable to the Georgian authorities . The
                                                                        applicant argues against this in that the dispatch rate is
                                                                        nowhere mentioned, not even in the document awarding
3 . The United Kingdom is ordered to bear its own costs .               the contract or in the memorandum concerning the above
                                                                        Agreement. The applicant accordingly submits that no
                                                                        dispatch costs need be paid to the Georgian authorities
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       and it contests the Commission decision requiring it to
                                                                        pay those costs .


title: Case T-317/05: Action brought on 16 August 2005 — Kustom Musical Amplification/OHIM

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/23

         Action brought on 16 August 2005 — Kustom Musical Amplification/OHIM
   (Case T-317/05)
   (2005/C 271/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Kustom Musical Amplification Inc. (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister and T.Bamford, solicitor]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal No 1035/2004-2, or alternatively, annul partially such that the specification of goods is restricted to ‘Stringed instruments, namely professional, electric guitars’ in class 15;

               —

               Remit the Community trade mark application No 3 206 372 to the office so as to allow the said application to proceed to advertisement;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay to the appellant/applicant the costs incurred by the appellant/applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the examiner.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The three dimensional mark representing the body of the so-called Beast guitar for goods in class 15 (stringed instruments, namely guitars) (Community trade mark application No 3 206 372)

      Decision of the examiner: Rejection of the trade mark application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94.


title: Case C-43/09 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/29

         Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-43/09 P)
   (2009/C 69/53)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: Kharalampos Meidanis and M. Tassopoulou)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               hold the present appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities which constitutes the subject of the present appeal;

               —

               order the opposing party to pay all the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   By the judgment of 19 November 2008, the setting aside of which is sought in the present appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.
   The Hellenic Republic puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal against that judgment.
   It submits in its first ground of appeal that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law with regard to the Commission's power ratione temporis to impose the particular financial correction, and that its judgment contains contradictory reasoning.
   The second ground is based on the submission that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law as regards infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity in connection with failure to comply with publicity measures, and that its judgment contains contradictory reasoning in this regard.
   The third ground is based on the submission that the Court of First Instance infringed the Community law principle of proportionality.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-146/04: Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2000/69/EC and 2001/81/EC — Atmospheric pollutants — Failure to transpose)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-146/04: Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2000/69/EC and 2001/81/EC - Atmospheric pollutants - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 143/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-146/04, action for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 19 March 2004 under Article 226 EC, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beel and G. Valero Jordana) against Kingdom of the Netherlands (agents: H.G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenkovský, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 14 April 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient air and Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.