title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 September 1998 in Case C-323/96: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Directives 89/440/EEC and 93/37/EEC - Failure to publish a contract notice - Application of negotiated procedure without justification)

text:
24.10.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 327/3
    at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been              survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    properly transposed into national law.                              maritime administrations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        obligations under Article 16(1) thereof;
2. Community law does not preclude, in the event of the
    repayment of charges levied in breach thereof,                 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    payment of interest calculated by methods less
    favourable than those applicable under the ordinary
    rules governing actions for the recovery of sums paid          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
    but not due between private individuals, provided that
    those methods apply in the same way to such actions
    brought under Community law as to those brought
    under national law.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
                                                                   in    Case   C-323/96: Commission of the European
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                   works contracts Ð Directives 89/440/EEC and 93/37/
                    of 15 September 1998                           EEC Ð Failure to publish a contract notice Ð Application
                                                                           of negotiated procedure without justification)
in   Case   C-431/97: Commission of the            European
                  Communities v Ireland (1)                                                (98/C 327/05)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Council Directive 94/57/
                 EC Ð Failure to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 327/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-431/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Ireland
(Agent: Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a                    In Case C-323/96: Commission of the European
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations        Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v Kingdom of
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              Belgium (Agent: Michel FlameÂe) Ð application for a
Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on                  declaration that, by failing to publish a contract notice in
common rules and standards for ship inspection and                 the Official Journal of the European Communities both
survey organisations and for the relevant activities of            for the overall project and for each of the lots relating to
maritime administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20),            the construction of the premises of the Vlaamse Raad, and
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            by failing to apply the award procedures laid down in
directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),           Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                 Directive 71/305/EEC concerning coordination of
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,               procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1), and in Council Directive 93/37/
Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a         EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:                        procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
                                                                   L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54) and, more specifically, by having
                                                                   awarded Lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without
                                                                   justification, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the                  its obligations under those directives and, more
    prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations or                specifically, Articles 7 and 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC Ð
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
    Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on              President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
    common rules and standards for ship inspection and             J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R.
17 September 1998, in which it:                                      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                     1998, in which it has ruled:
1. Declares that,
                                                                     1. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
     Ð by failing to publish a contract notice in the
                                                                          concerning the placing of plant protection products
         Official Journal of the European Communities
                                                                          on the market requires prior authorisation, granted
         both for the overall project and for each of the lots
                                                                          pursuant to either Article 4 or Article 8, to be
         relating to the construction of the premises of the
                                                                          obtained from the competent authority of each
         Vlaamse Raad, and
                                                                          Member State in which a pesticide covered by that
                                                                          directive is placed on the market.
     Ð by failing to apply the award procedures laid
         down in Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July
         1971 concerning the coordination of procedures              2. National legislation which prohibits a biocidal product
         for the award of public works contracts, as                      not previously authorised by the competent authority
         amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC                          from being placed on the market constitutes a measure
         of 18 July 1989, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC                 having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction
         of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination                      within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty
         of procedures for the award of public works                      which is justified under Article 36 of that Treaty, even
         contracts and, more specifically, by having                      if that product has already been authorised in another
         awarded lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without                 Member State, provided that technical or chemical
         justification,                                                   analyses or laboratory tests are not unnecessarily
                                                                          required when the same analyses and tests have
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                      already been carried out in that other Member State
     obligations under those directives and, more                         and their results are available to the competent
     specifically, under Articles 7 and 11(2) and (9) of                  authorities of the importing Member State or can, at
     Directive 93/37;                                                     their request, be made available to them.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 17 September 1998
                     of 17 September 1998                            in Case C-412/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-400/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                 from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus): Proceedings brought
from the Tribunal Correctionnel, Charleroi): Criminal                 by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (1)
            proceedings against Jean Harpegnies (1)
                                                                     (Transport Ð Public service obligations Ð Application for
(Plant protection products Ð National legislation                              termination of part of a service obligation)
requiring approval by the competent authorities Ð
                                                                                (98/C 327/07)
                  Article 30 of the EC Treaty)
                          (98/C 327/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-412/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Correctionnel                     of the EC Treaty from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus
(Criminal Court), Charleroi (Belgium), for a preliminary             (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought
court against Jean Harpegnies Ð on the interpretation of             by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab Ð
Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),             on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                 the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States


title: Case T-482/04: Action by Komsa Kommunikation Sachsen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) brought on 13 December 2004

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/30

         Action by Komsa Kommunikation Sachsen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) brought on 13 December 2004
   (Case T-482/04)
   (2005/C 57/52)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 December 2004 by Komsa Kommunikation Sachsen AG, established in Hartmannsdorf (Germany), represented by F. Hagemann, lawyer.
   The other party before the Board of Appeal was Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG., established in Norderstedt (Germany).
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2004 (Case R65/2003-4) in so far as it allowed the appeal of the opposing party in respect of the goods submitted for Community registration: ‘Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of images, sound and data; electrotechnical and electronic apparatus and systems composed thereof for the remote control of industrial processes; all such above-mentioned goods being also capable of installation in vehicles; programmed machine-readable data carriers of all kinds’.

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for the Community mark:

               The applicant

               Community mark submitted for registration:

               The pictorial mark ‘@k’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 (Application No 1322460)

               Proprietor of the rival mark or design cited in the opposition procedure:

               Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG.

               Mark or design cited in opposition:

               The Community pictorial mark 'A+K' for goods and services in Classes 6, 9 and 20 (Community Mark No 294 546).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Dismissal of the Opposition.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal by Anders+Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG allowed in so far as it related to ‘Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of images, sound and data; electrotechnical and electronic apparatus and systems composed thereof for the remote control of industrial processes; all such above-mentioned goods being also capable of installation in vehicles; programmed machine-readable data carriers of all kinds’. Otherwise, appeal dismissed.

               Grounds:

               The decision of the Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, because the Board made an incorrect assessment of the requirements for the existence of a risk of confusion in trade mark law. In the applicant's submission, there is no such risk of confusion between the marks being compared in this case.


title: Case C-249/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Byankov v Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 27 — Administrative prohibition on leaving the territory on account of failure to pay a debt owed to a private legal person — Principle of legal certainty with regard to administrative acts which have become final — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Hristo Byankov v Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
   (Case C-249/11) (1)

   (Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 27 - Administrative prohibition on leaving the territory on account of failure to pay a debt owed to a private legal person - Principle of legal certainty with regard to administrative acts which have become final - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
   2012/C 366/20
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hristo Byankov

      Defendant: Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article 4 TEU in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Interpretation of Articles 27(1) and Article 31(1) and (3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Restrictions on the right of freedom of movement — Order imposing an administrative measure prohibiting a debtor from leaving the territory on the ground of the non-recovery of a debt — Principle of legal certainty in relation to final administrative acts — Whether or not the competent administrative authority is obliged to re-examine the lawfulness of an administrative act which has not been the subject of an appeal and has therefore become final in order to ensure that there is no disproportionate restriction on the right of freedom of movement

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision which provides for the imposition of a restriction on the freedom of movement, within the European Union, of a national of a Member State, solely on the ground that he owes a legal person governed by private law a debt which exceeds a statutory threshold and is unsecured.

               2.

               European Union law must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which an administrative procedure that has resulted in the adoption of a prohibition on leaving the territory such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has become final and has not been contested before the courts, may be reopened — in the event of the prohibition being clearly contrary to European Union law — only in circumstances such as those exhaustively listed in Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrativnoprotsesualen kodeks), despite the fact that such a prohibition continues to produce legal effects with regard to its addressee.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-396/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Klagenævnet for Udbud (Denmark) lodged on 20 August 2014  — MT Højgaard A/S and Züblin A/S v Banedanmark

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Klagenævnet for Udbud (Denmark) lodged on 20 August 2014 — MT Højgaard A/S and Züblin A/S v Banedanmark
   (Case C-396/14)
   2014/C 388/06
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Klagenævnet for Udbud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: MT Højgaard A/S and Züblin A/S

      Defendant: Banedanmark

      Question referred

   Is the principle of equal treatment in Article 10, cf. Article 51 of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as precluding, in situation such as the one at issue here, a contracting authority from awarding the contract to a tenderer which had not applied for pre-selection and therefore was not pre-selected?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


No C 119/30        [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                13 . 5 . 95
    law in that the Commission unlawfully refused to grant               — denied the applicant the right to be heard and acted
    a declaration that there were no grounds for the                         in breach of the principle of good administration.
    application of the provisions of Article 2 of Regulation
    (EEC ) No 1017/68 and/or Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC              (!) OJ No L 354, 31 . 12 . 1994, p. 66 .
    Treaty and Article 53 ( 1 ) of the EEA Agreement. The
    Commission therefore has no jurisdiction under
    Article 5 of the Regulation and/or Article 85 ( 3 ) of the
    EC Treaty and Article 53 ( 3 ) of the EEA Agreement to                Removal from the register of Case T-518/93 i 1 )
    impose the conditions .                                                                    95/C 119/56
    Alternatively,                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 28 March 1995 the President of the Second
2. The Decision is founded on an incorrect and incomplete            Chamber ( Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    assessment of the facts, vitiated by manifest error of law       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
    in that the conditions are unnecessary for the purpose of        from the register of Case T-518/93 : Anton Durbeck GmbH
    rendering inapplicable Article 2 of the Regulation               v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    and/or Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and Article 53 ( 1 )    European Communities .
    of the EEA Agreement.
                                                                     (M OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .
3 . The conditions are not necessary and are
    disproportionate to any alleged restrictions on
    competition. The conditions are also uncertain in their
    application and unduly burdensome. Consequently, the                  Removal from the register of Case T-282/94 ( ] )
    protection of the imposition of the conditions offends                                   ( 95/C 119/57
    against the principles of Community law of the
    protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
    and legal certainty.
                                                                     By order of 17 March 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                     Chamber Court of First Instance of the European
4 . In imposing the conditions, the Commission has                   Communities ordered the removal from the register of
    exceeded its competence and misused its powers by                Case T-282/94: La Société en Commandite Jurope v.
    extending to the Railways, in substance, the obligation          Commission of the European Communities .
    placed by Directive 91/440/EEC upon Eurotunnel as the
    infrastructure manager. The Commission has also                  (M OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
    exercised its powers under Article 5 of the Regulation
    and/or Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and Article 53 ( 3 )
    of the EEA Agreement to matters governed by, and in a
    manner inconsistent with, Directive 91 /440/EEC. The                  Removal from the register of Case T-359/94 ( )
    imposition of the conditions is therefore both                                           ( 95/C 119/58 )
    discriminatory and unlawful.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
5 . The Commission has acted in breach of essential
    procedural requirements and also in breach of                    By order of 22 March 1995 the President of the Fourth
    Article 190 of the EC Treaty and the principle of                Chamber ( Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    Community law of natural justice, thereby vitiating the          Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
    Decision, in that the Commission:                                from the register of Case T-359/94: Schmidt + Clemens
                                                                     GmbH + Co ., Edelstahlwerke Kaiserau v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities.
    — failed to adduce evidence and to provide adequate
        reasons for the Decision,                                    (!) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht, Roermond, by judgments of that court of 18 March 1997 in the case of Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen (Cases C-115/97, C-116/97 and C-117/97)

text:
No C 142/ 14           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 20 March                      pension    fund   within    the meaning     of the     Wet
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henia                      betreffende verplichte Deelneming in een Bedrijfspen
Babahenini v. Belgian State on the following question:                    sioenfonds ( Law on Compulsory Participation in an
                                                                          Industrial Pension Scheme )?
In the light of Article 39 of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the                      4 . Must Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, read
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, approved by                      together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78 ('), may a Member State                     infringement of those provisions where the authorities
refuse to grant disablement benefit ( in this case that                   accord an industrial pension scheme an exclusive right
provided for by the Belgian Law of 27 February 1987 ) to                  which gives rise to a serious restriction of the freedom
a disabled person of Algerian nationality who has not                     to make pension arrangements with a private insurer ?
herself worked in Belgium, where that person resides in
Belgium with her spouse, an Algerian national in receipt
of a Belgian retirement pension ?
(') OJ No L 263 , 27. 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
                                                                     Appeal brought on 22 March 1997 by Union Française de
                                                                     l'Express (UFEX, previously called Syndicat Français de
                                                                     l'Express International, SFEI), DHL International and
                                                                     CRIE against    the judgment delivered on 15 January 1997
                                                                     by the Third     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                          the European    Communities in Case T-77/95 between SFEI
Kantongerecht, Roermond, by judgments of that court of               and Others       and the Commission of the European
18 March 1997 in the case of Brentjens' Handelsonder                                          Communities
neming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de
                  Handel in Bouwmaterialen                                                 ( Case C-l 19/97 P )
         ( Cases C-l 15/97, C-116/97 and C-117/97)                                            ( 97/C 142/30 )
                          ( 97/C 142/29 )
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities by judgments of the                             of the European Communities in Case T-77/95 between
Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court), Roermond, of 18 March               SFEI and Others and the Commission of the European
1997, which were received at the Court Registry on                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
20 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               22 March 1997 by Union Française de l'Express (UFEX,
Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfs              previously called Syndicat Français de l'Express Interna
pensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen on the                tional, SFEI ), established in Roissy CDG ( France ), DHL
following questions:                                                 International, established in Roissy ( France ), and CRIE,
                                                                     established in Asnières ( France ), represented by Eric
                                                                     Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne,
1 . Must Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty be interpreted as         of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service
    meaning that there is an agreement or decision of an             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62
    undertaking or association of undertakings which                Avenue Guillaume .
    restricts competition or affects trade between Member
    States, as those elements are respectively referred to in
    that provision, where social partners within a                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
    particular sector of activity make agreements
    concerning pensions under which a single industrial
    pension scheme is set up for the whole sector, to which         — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
    all workers employed within the sector are in principle              delivered on 15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95 H SFEI
    to be compulsorily affiliated and which is to have the               and Others v. Commission,
    sole right to administer the funds collected for that
    purpose within the sector ?                                     — itself give final judgment in the case in accordance
                                                                         with Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of
2 . Must Articles 3 (g), 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty, read                 Justice,
    together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
    infringement of those provisions where the authorities
    make participation in a single industrial pension               — in the alternative, in the event of the Court not itself
    scheme, as described in Question 1 , compulsory for                  giving final judgment, refer the matter back to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance with a
    undertakings within a particular sector of activity ?
                                                                         different composition,
3 . Must the term 'undertaking', as used in the
    competition provisions (Articles 85 to 94 ) of the EC           — order the Commission to pay the costs or, if it does
    Treaty, be interpreted as including an industrial                    not give final judgment, reserve the costs .


title: Case T-294/13: Action brought on 27 May 2013 — Fialtor v Commission and ECB

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/19

         Action brought on 27 May 2013 — Fialtor v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-294/13)
   (2013/C 226/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fialtor Ltd (Belize, Belize) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order compensation in the sum of EUR 278 925,79 on the basis that the conditions required under the Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 between Cyprus and the Defendants at paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 were pregnant with requirements in flagrant violation of a superior law for the protection of the individual, namely: article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

               —

               Declare the relevant conditions void and order an urgent review of the financial assistance instruments under article 14 to 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (‘ESM Treaty’) pursuant to Article 19 in light of the court’s judgment with a view to changes in order to comply with the judgment of the court; and

               —

               To the extent that compensation under the first head of claim does not cater for the fact that the relevant conditions would stand annulled, an order for compensation for breach of article 263 TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the relevant conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding were pregnant with requirements that were ‘in flagrant violation of a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual’ (1) because:

                           —

                           The said rule of law is superior because it is a law contained the Charter and the ECHR;

                           —

                           By Article 51(1) of the Charter and 6.2 TEU the defendants are obliged to respect and uphold fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter and the ECHR; and

                           —

                           Bank deposits are property within the meaning of the said article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the violations below taken together were so extensive as to amount to a flagrant violation of a superior law, as follows:

                           —

                           At the time the applicant was deprived of its bank deposits there were no ‘conditions provided for by law’ in place in the acquis dealing with deprivation of bank deposits contrary to the Charter and Protocol;

                           —

                           The applicant was deprived of their deposits without ‘fair compensation being paid in good time’ contrary to article 17 of the Charter and article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           Deprivation of deposits is prima facie unlawful unless ‘subject to the principle of proportionality… it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’ (2);

                           —

                           The competing public interest in preventing panic and a run on the banking system, short and medium term, was not considered in evaluating the public interest under Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol;

                           —

                           The aim was not to damage or penalise Cyprus but to benefit it and the euro area by providing stability support and thereby alleviating not destabilising its financial institutions and economic viability; and

                           —

                           There was no relationship of proportionality of the interference to a legitimate aim since by Article 3 of the ESM Treaty 2012 the genuine objective was ‘to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality… to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing or are threatened by severe financial problems, if indispensable to safeguard the euro area as a whole and of its member state’ without paralysing its economy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that deprivation of the applicant’s deposits was not necessary or proportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in the result the defendants caused the applicant to be deprived of its bank deposits because, but for the flagrant infringement, the applicant’s bank deposits would have been protected by their rights under the Charter and Protocol with the result that the applicant’s loss was sufficiently direct and foreseeable.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the above submissions are well founded the relevant conditions fall to be declared void notwithstanding the relevant conditions were addressed to Cyprus, since they are of direct and individual concern to the applicant on the grounds that the relevant conditions and the manner of their implementation infringe the Treaty and/or a rule of law relating to its application and/or, to the extent that it is held that depriving the applicant’s bank deposit undermined the rule of law contrary to Article 6.1 of the TEU, were a misuse of powers.

      (1)  See the judgment of 2 December 1971 in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schoeppenstedt v Council (1971) ECR 975

      (2)  Article 52(1) of the Charter


title: Case T-253/14: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/58

         Order of the General Court of 8 September 2015 — Chemo Ibérica v OHIM — Novartis (EXELTIS)
   (Case T-253/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/74)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2001 in Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointments — Classification in Grade — Late submission of the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 303/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.10.2001
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Madrid, represented by José Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer,
                                                                            with an address for service in Madrid, against the Commission
                         of 30 April 2001                                   of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J. Rivas
                                                                            Andres) — application for annulment of the decisions of the
                                                                            Commission of 28 March 1989 and 14 November 1989
in Case T-41/00, British American Tobacco International                     appointing the applicant as a probationer official and sub-
(Holdings) BV v Commission of the European Communi-                         sequently as an official definitively classed in Grade B 3
                                ties (1)                                    respectively inasmuch as those decisions classify him in
                                                                            Grade B 3 rather than B 1, and the decisions of the Commission
(Decision 94/90 — Public access to Commission documents                     of 12 July 1999 and 18 April 2000 rejecting the request
— Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Legal interest                   to review the applicant’s classification and rejecting the
                     in bringing proceedings)                               administrative complaint directed against the former rejection
                                                                            and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions
                          (2001/C 303/26)
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                   (Language of the case: English)                          H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 March 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-41/00 British American Tobacco International
(Holdings) BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), rep-                 1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
resented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis) —
application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                  2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
of 20 January 2000, refusing to grant Rothmans of Pall Mall
Ltd access to certain minutes of the Committee on Excise
                                                                            (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
Duties — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 30 April 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                                of 25 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-244/00 Coillte Teoranta v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Agriculture — Refusal to recognise as chargeable to the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  EAGGF expenditure resulting from irregularities in the
                                                                            application of Community rules — Action by the recipient
                         of 28 March 2001                                               of the aid — Manifest inadmissibility)
in Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle against                                            (2001/C 303/28)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Appointments — Classification in Grade —
    Late submission of the application — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-244/00: Coillte Teoranta, established in Dublin,
                          (2001/C 303/27)                                   represented by G. French, Solicitor, P. Gallagher SC and
                                                                            N. Hyland, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Agents: M. Niejahr and K. Fitch) — application for annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 exclud-
In Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle, an official             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-279/02 P: Nuno Antas de Campos v European Parliament (Appeal — Officials — Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 — Refusal of application for voluntary termination of service)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-279/02 P: Nuno Antas de Campos v European Parliament (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 - Refusal of application for voluntary termination of service)
   (2004/C 314/01)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-279/02: Nuno Antas de Campos, official at the European Parliament, residing in Lisbon (Portugal) (Lawyers: C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete), the other party to the proceedings being the European Parliament (Agents: R. da Silva Passos and J.F de Wachter) – appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 29 July 2002 – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Antas de Campos to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 October 1999 in Case C-379/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret): Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v Paranova A/S (Trade-mark rights — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel imports — Replacement of a trade mark)

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 20/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                         of 12 October 1999
                         of 5 October 1999                                 in Case C-379/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Sø- og Handelsret): Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v
in Case C-10/98 P: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl v                                                 Paranova A/S (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Trade-mark rights — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel
(Appeal — Aquaculture — Regulations (EEC) Nos 4028/86                                 imports — Replacement of a trade mark)
and 1116/88 — Community financial aid — Reduction of
                                  aid)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/05)
                           (2000/C 20/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-379/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-10/98 P: Azienda Agricola ‘Le Canne’ Srl, established            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sø- og Handelsret
in Porto Viro (Italy), represented by G. Schiller, G. Carraro and          (Marine and Commercial Court), Denmark, for a preliminary
F. Mazzonetto, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias                  Pharmacia & Upjohn SA, formerly Upjohn SA, and Paranova
Hardt — Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                  A/S — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of                    Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
7 November 1997 in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission                     and of Article 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
[1997] ECR II-2055, seeking to have that judgment set aside,               21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the                States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) —
European Communities (Agent: E. de March, assisted by A. Dal               the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
Ferro) — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of P.J.G. Kap-                 J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and R. Schintgen
teyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rappor-            (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges, Advocate Gen-                teur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
eral: G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar              Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
has given a judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 1999, in which
                                                                           it has ruled as follows:
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    7 November 1997 in Case T-218/95 Le Canne v Commission;
                                                                           The condition of artificial partitioning of the markets between
                                                                           Member States, as laid down in the judgments in Case 102/77
2. Declares Telex No 12 497 of 27 October 1995 null and void               Hoffmann-La Roche v Centrafarm [1978] ECR 1139 and in Joined
    on account of failure to comply with the procedure provided            Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb
    for by Articles 44(1) and 47 of Council Regulation (EEC)               and Others v Paranova [1996] ECR 1-3457, means that it is
    No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures                   necessary, in order to determine whether the proprietor of a trade
    to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture       mark may, under national law, prevent a parallel importer of
    sector and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                    pharmaceutical products from replacing the trade mark used in the
    No 1116/88 of 20 April 1988 laying down detailed rules for             Member State of export by that which the proprietor uses in the
    the application of decisions granting aid for projects concerning      Member State of import, to assess whether the circumstances
    Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the              prevailing at the time of marketing in the Member State of import
    fisheries and aquaculture sector and in structural works in coastal    make it objectively necessary to replace the original trade mark by
    waters;                                                                that used in the Member State of import in order that the product in
                                                                           question may be marketed in that State by the parallel importer.
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
    costs of both sets of proceedings.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 387 of 20.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 January 2004 in Case C-271/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato ): Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali v Consorzio Produttori Pompelmo Italiano Soc. coop. arl (COPPI) (Agriculture — EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Articles 23 and 24 — Supervisory powers of the Commission and Member State respectively)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 71/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions
                                                                             for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards
                                                                             coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     between themselves and with the operations of the European
                                                                             Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments
                        of 22 January 2004                                   (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20), and of
                                                                             Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April
in Case C-271/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ,
the Consiglio di Stato ): Ministero delle Politiche Agricole                 English Special Edition, 1970(I), p. 218), the Court (Sixth
e Forestali v Consorzio Produttori Pompelmo Italiano                         Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President
                     Soc. coop. arl (COPPI) (1)                              of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
(Agriculture — EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assist-                     Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
ance — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Articles 23 and 24                      the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January 2004, in
— Supervisory powers of the Commission and Member State                      which it has ruled:
                            respectively)
                                                                             The first subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                          (2004/C 71/01)                                     No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for
                                                                             implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordi-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          nation of the activities of the different Structural Funds between
                                                                             themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank
                                                                             and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, is to be interpreted
                   in the European Court Reports)                            as meaning that, in the context of an action programme financed by
                                                                             the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
                                                                             where an examination reveals a breach of the conditions laid down
                                                                             for the implementation of a programme’s operations, a Member State
In Case C-271/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   which has granted financial assistance from the EAGGF may, in
EC by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in             order to prevent and to take action against irregularities, revoke that
the proceedings pending before that court between Ministero                  assistance and require partial repayment thereof from the final
delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Consorzio Produttori                recipients.
Pompelmo Italiano Soc. coop. arl (COPPI), on the interpret-
ation of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of
15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the                           (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
conditions under which agricultural products are processed
and marketed (OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1), as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1932/84 of 19 June 1984 (OJ 1984
L 180, p. 1), of Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC)


title: Case T-657/14: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2015 — Spain v Commission

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/39

      Order of the General Court of 9 February 2015 — Spain v Commission
      (Case T-657/14) (1)

      (2015/C 107/52)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case C-144/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 5 April 2000 in the criminal proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann

text:
24.6.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/13
3. Do the abovementioned services fall within the scope of             represented by J.F. Pasquier, Legal Adviser, and G. Valero
    Article 13(A)(1)(g) of Regulation 77/388/EEC and can a             Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    taxable person rely on that provision?                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that:
                                                                           — by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
                                                                                within 10 years following the notification of this
                                                                                Directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the
                                                                                limit values set in accordance with the directive,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                       contrary to Article 4(1) of the directive;
hof by order of that court of 5 April 2000 in the criminal
           proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann                           — by failing to carry out sampling operations, the mini-
                                                                                mum frequency of which is laid down in the Annex in
                                                                                respect of all parameters and all bathing waters,
                        (Case C-144/00)                                         contrary to Article 6(1) of the directive; and
                        (2000/C 176/22)                                    — by failing to carry out the sampling operations for
                                                                                ‘total coliform’, the French Republic has failed to take
                                                                                all the measures necessary to comply with Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          76/160/EEC (1) its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                          and 6 of the directive;
5 April 2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                           the French Republic has failed to take all the measures
Matthias Hoffmann on the following questions:
                                                                           necessary to comply with its obligations under Directive
                                                                           76/160/EEC and has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1. Is Article 13(A)(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive                   Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that directive.
    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —             2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
    assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) to be interpreted as
    meaning that the term ‘other [recognised] cultural bodies’
    used therein also covers a soloist who supplies cultural           Pleas in law and main arguments
    services?
                                                                       — The Commission finds that a substantial number of
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative:                   bathing areas in 1995 did not conform to the obligations
                                                                           concerning water quality more than 10 years after those
                                                                           obligations entered into force. Moreover, the results avail-
    Do restrictions arise from the heading ‘... activities in the          able for the subsequent years, like those for 1995, do not
    public interest’ chosen in Article 13(A), for example where            conform to water quality standards. Since the directive
    performances by soloists serve primarily commercial pur-               imposes on the Member States a clear and unconditional
    poses?                                                                 obligation as to the result to be achieved, namely as regards
                                                                           ensuring that the value limits are complied with, the
                                                                           Commission finds that the French Republic has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under the directive.
                                                                       — Despite the fact that sampling is clearly and uncon-
                                                                           ditionally required to be carried out by the competent
                                                                           authorities of the Member States under Community law,
Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of                       no steps have yet been taken to remedy the complaint that
 the European Communities against the French Republic                      sampling has been carried out insufficiently frequently in
                                                                           respect of all French parameters and bathing waters.
                        (Case C-147/00)                                    Finally, the Commission considers that it is unjustified to
                                                                           calculate and present to the public a figure relating to
                        (2000/C 176/23)                                    conformity arrived at by taking account only of the such
                                                                           parameters as have been correctly measured. The method
                                                                           used by the French authorities amounts to ignoring the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               fact that certain areas which have been incorrectly sampled
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April                   could well not be in conformity with the absolute value
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        limits laid down by the directive.


               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/1

         2009/C 193/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case T-648/11: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/24

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (SMART NOTEBOOK)
   (Case T-648/11) (1)

   2014/C 329/35
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


10.2.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-332/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/34)                                                     (2001/C 45/37)
By order of 20 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
from the register of Case C-440/99: Commission of the              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-332/99:
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 6.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/00 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-69/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/35)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/38)
By order of 25 September 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-48/00: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                           from the register of Case C-69/00: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-290/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-197/98 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/36)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/39)
By order of 29 September 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-290/98: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-197/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                         Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-547/09: Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab
   (Case C-547/09) (1)

   2011/C 232/36
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-289/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.
   (Case C-289/16)
   (2016/C 350/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

      Question referred

   Is there already a ‘direct’ sale to the final customer within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (1) where the operator or his sales personnel sells the products to the final customer without the intervention of a third party, or does a ‘direct’ sale additionally require that the sale occurs at the place where the products are stored when both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer are present at the same time?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).


5.7.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-395/01 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-426/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/36)                                                        (2003/C 158/38)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 27 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
from the register of Case C-395/01 (Reference for a preliminary        the removal from the register of Case C-426/01 (Reference for
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Instance, Vienne): SA
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-417/01 ( 1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-432/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/37)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/39)
By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-417/01 (Reference for a preliminary        By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        from the register of Case C-432/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
                                                                       Vorarlberg): Helmut Gunz.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/37

         Removal from the register of Case C-256/03 (1)

   (2004/C 300/73)
   By order of 25 August 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-256/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 184 du 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-138/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Naime Dogan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Request for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Additional Protocol — Article 41(1) — Right of residence of family members of Turkish nationals — National legislation requiring evidence of basic linguistic knowledge with regard to the family member wishing to enter the national territory — Lawfulness — Directive 2003/86/EC — Family reunification — Article 7(2) — Compatibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Naime Dogan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-138/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Additional Protocol - Article 41(1) - Right of residence of family members of Turkish nationals - National legislation requiring evidence of basic linguistic knowledge with regard to the family member wishing to enter the national territory - Lawfulness - Directive 2003/86/EC - Family reunification - Article 7(2) - Compatibility))
   2014/C 315/15
   Language of the case: Germany

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Naime Dogan

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed in Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 concluding the additional protocol and the financial protocol signed on 23 November 1970 and annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and relating to the measures to be taken for their implementation must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘standstill’ clause set out in that provision precludes a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the Member State concerned, which imposes on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that Member State, who wish to enter the territory of that State for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they have acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-583/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 12 December 2012 — Sintax Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 12 December 2012 — Sintax Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
   (Case C-583/12)
   2013/C 55/07
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sintax Trading OÜ

      Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

      Third party: OÜ Acerra

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the ‘proceedings … to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed’ referred to in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1383/2003 (1) also be conducted within the customs department or must ‘the authority competent to decide on the case’ dealt with in Chapter III of the regulation be separate from the customs?

               2.

               Recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1383/2003 mentions as one of the objectives of the regulation the protection of consumers, and according to recital 3 in the preamble a procedure should be set up to enable the customs authorities to enforce as effectively as possible the prohibition of the introduction into the Community customs territory of goods infringing an intellectual property right, without impeding the freedom of legitimate trade in accordance with recital 2 in the preamble to the regulation and recital 1 in the preamble to implementing regulation No 1891/2004. (2) Is it compatible with those objectives if the measures laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 1383/2003 can be applied only if the right-holder initiates the procedure mentioned in Article 13(1) of the regulation for determination of an infringement of an intellectual property right, or must it also be possible, for the effective pursuit of those objectives, for the customs authorities to initiate the corresponding procedure?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2004 L 328, p. 16).


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-35/95)

text:
 22 . 4 . 95        | EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 101 / 15
— the Commission infringed the applicant's right to a fair                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     hearing and the principle of fair procedure, in that it
     failed to make clear, either in the statement of objections                  ( 1 ) The applicant complains that, by reasons of procedural
     or in the decision, precisely which of the acts of the                             defects, the Commission has infringed the applicant's
     applicant were complained of.                                                      right to a fair hearing, in that it:
                                                                                — did not give the applicant any access whatever to
The applicant further pleads as follows regarding the                                       parts of the documentation in the proceeding, and
substance of the matter :                                                                   gave access to other documents only in the form of
                                                                                illegible copies,
— the applicant at no time participated in any agreement
     on non-transhipment to home markets and the                                        — failed to provide German translations of numerous
     regulation of cross-border supplies of cement,                                         items of documentary evidence and extensive parts
                                                                                of the provisional minutes of hearings,
— the Commission's complaint that the applicant
     communicated to Cembureau-The European Cement                                      — prescribed an unreasonably short time limit for
     Association the unpublished prices actually charged by                                 the submission of replies to the statement of
     the applicant is unfounded . The Commission's                                          objections,
     assumptions in that regard are based on errors of                                  — omitted, contrary to the principles governing
     fact.
                                                                                official investigations, to include within the
                                                                                subject-matter of the proceeding its internal
In the alternative, the fine should be reduced, since,                                      documentation regarding discussions between the
according even to the contents of the decision itself, the                                   Commissioner responsible for competition matters
participation by the applicant in the alleged infringements                                 and the undertakings concerning aid to certain
was minimal, and the applicant could not have assumed that                                   Greek producers and discussions concerning the
the communication of publicly available gross price lists                                   basing point system,
constituted an infringement of Article 85 of the EC
Treaty.                                                                                — formulated the statement of objections sent to the
                                                                                applicant in a manner which was incomplete and
                                                                                insufficiently specific.
                                                                                ( 2 ) The contested decision is unlawful, in that:
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Dyckerhoff                                        — it is inadequately reasoned and fails, in breach of the
Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European                                   applicant's right to a fair hearing, to deal with the
                           Communities                                                      defence open to the applicant,
                         (Case T-35/95 )                                                — it misconstrues the actual cicumstances in the
                          ( 95/C 101 /33 )                                                  cement market and therefore necessarily draws
                                                                                erroneous conclusions regarding the possibility of
                                                                                cross-border competition,
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                — it fails adequately to take into consideration the
An action against the Commission of the European                                            particular competitive situation of the applicant,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                                     — it goes beyond the legal limits within which the
1995 by Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft of Wiesbaden                                          alleged conduct of Cembureau and/or of certain
( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Claus Tessin                                sub-groups and of the national associations may be
and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwàlte, Cologne, with an                                           imputed to undertakings .
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                                                       ( 3 ) The applicant contends, lastly, that individual articles
                                                                                of the contested decision are unlawful, since they are
                                                                                based neither on the actual findings contained in the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                            Decision nor in Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty:
1 , annul Articles 1 , 3 ( 3 ) (a ), 4 ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ), 5 , 7, 8 , 9        — contrary to what is stated in Article 1 of the
     and 10 of Commission Decision C(94 ) 3077 final of                                     Decision, the applicant did not participate in any
     30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under                                        Cembureau agreement, since no such agreement
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and                                      existed,
     33.322 — Cement), in so far as they concern the
     applicant;                                                                         — there is no evidence to support the finding in Article
                                                                                3 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Decision that the applicant
2 , in the alternative, reduce to a reasonable sum the fines of                             participated in agreements and concerted practices
     ECU 12 296 000 and ECU 988 000 imposed on the                                          involving the regulation of cement supplies from
     applicant by Articles 9 and 10 of the contested                                        France to Germany; in any event, discussions held
     Decision;                                                                              in that regard did not result in any agreements or
                                                                                practices contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
3 , order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                  Treaty,
 ---pagebreak---  No C 101 /16           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 4 . 95
      — the allegation in Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Decision that          (2 ) in the event that the Court does not grant the
          the applicant participated in an agreement on the                   application referred to in ( 1 ) above, modify Article 9 of
          setting-up of the 'Cembureau Task Force' or                         the aforesaid Decision so as to cancel or substantially
          'European Task Force' is incorrect,                                 reduce the fine imposed on Vicat;
      — contrary to what is stated in Article 4 (2 ) of the             ( 3 ) order the Commission to pay all the costs,
          Decision, the applicant did not participate in any                  documentary evidence in support of which will be
          agreement on the setting-up of the Joint Trading                    supplied at a later date .
          Company, Intercement; nor was it ever a
          shareholder in that undertaking,                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      — contrary to what is stated in Article 4 ( 3 ) of the            The applicant pleads as follows in support of its
          Decision, the applicant at no time participated               application:
          in concerted practices designed to withdraw
          Calcestruzzi      as   a  customer   from        the  Greek      I. Procédural defects :
          producers,
                                                                              1 , Defective notification of the objections:
      — there is no actual evidence or legal justification for
          the findings in Article 5 of the Decision that the                       ( a ) failure to specify individually the objection
          applicant participated, within the framework of                                of participation in the agreement on non
          the ECEC, in any exchange of information or                                    transhipment to home markets;
          agreements designed to prevent incursions into
          national markets, since the activities of the ECEC                       ( b ) failure to specify individually the evidence
          related solely to markets in third countries,                                  showing the participation by the applicant in
                                                                                the infringement referred to in Article 1 .
      — Article 7 of the Decision is untenable in law and in
          fact, since it was not the task of the WCC to protect               2, breach of the obligation to provide access;
          domestic markets and to export the production
          surpluses of WCC members by universal consent to                    3 , infringement of the substantive rules requiring the
          markets in third countries; in actual fact, there were                  Advisory Committee to be consulted;
          no rules regarding domestic markets, and the
          activities of the WCC related exclusively to markets                4, breach of the principle of impartiality.
          in third countries,
                                                                         II. Infringement of Article 85 by reason of manifest defects
      — lastly, Articles 9 and 10 of the Decision seriously                   in the statement of reasons for the decision :
          disregard the requirement of fault, the question of
          prescription and the criteria laid down by the Court                1 . The Commission has failed to adduce sufficient
          of Justice as to the determination of the level of                      evidence in law to show that the applicant
          fines .                                                                 participated in a 'general agreement on
                                                                                non-transhipment to home markets'.
                                                                              2. Absence of any concerted practice with Buzzi: the
                                                                                applicant contests, first, the allegation that its
                                                                                exchange of price information with Buzzi is capable
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Vicat SA against                            of constituting an infringement of Article 85 ;
       the Commission of the European Communities                                 second, it considers that the conduct found to have
                          ( Case T-37/95 )                                        taken place is justified on grounds other than those
                            ( 95/C 101 /34 )                                      put forward by the Commission and that that
                                                                                justification is such that, in accordance with settled
                                                                                case-law, the conduct in question cannot qualify as
                  (Language of the case: French)                                  an infringement in the present case.
An action against the Commission of the European                       III. The applicant contends that the fine is manifestly
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             excessive, even assuming that certain facts alleged
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                           against it are found to constitute an infringement:
1995 by Vicat SA, the head office of which is in Paris,
represented by Edouard Didier and Jean-Claude Rivalland,                      1 . in determining the amount of the fine imposed on
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                       the applicant, the Commission manifestly failed to
at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde.                                take account of the specific circumstances
                                                                                attaching to the applicant. In so doing, the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      Commission wrongly assessed the gravity of the
                                                                                infringement as regards the applicant;
( 1 ) annul, wholly or in part, Articles 1 , 3 ( 1 ) (c ) and 9 of the
      Decision of the Commission of 30 November 1994 in                       2 , the duration of the infringements found by the
      so far as those articles concern Vicat;                                     Commission to have been committed by the