title: Case C-103/00: Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the requisite
                                                                                (Case C-105/00)
     measures to establish and implement an effective system
     of strict protection for the sea turtle caretta caretta on
     Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species                                     (2000/C 163/16)
     during its egg-laying period (end of May to end of August)
     and any activity which might bring about deterioration in,         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     or destruction of, its breeding areas, and consequently not        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
     complying with its obligations pursuant to Article 12(1)(b)        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992          represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
     on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
     obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 (1), the Portu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                             Treaty; and
According to the Commission, full and effective implemen-               2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
tation of Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 requires the adoption
of specific laws, regulations or administrative measures and
the taking of substantive measures on site to protect the               Pleas in law and main arguments
particular species.
                                                                        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
The Commission established in its reasoned opinion that there           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
was no specific institutional framework whatever for the                to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
protection of the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, a fact       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
which was not disputed by the Greek authorities in their reply          That period expired on 1 January 1999 without Portugal
of 29 October 1999.                                                     having brought into force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a
Secondly, the Commission referred in its reasoned opinion to                harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
the absence of coordinated measures for the protection of the               length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1).
sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, above all during the
sensitive period when it lays eggs.
The Hellenic Republic does not deny that it must adopt the
requisite measures to establish an effective system of protection
for the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, in accordance
with Article 12 of Directive 92/43.                                     Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The Commission thus finds that the Hellenic Republic has
failed to adopt appropriate measures to implement Article 12                                     (Case C-106/00)
of Directive 92/43 fully and effectively.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/17)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-177/11: Order of the General Court of 30 August 2011 — PASP and Others v Council

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/10

         Order of the General Court of 30 August 2011 — PASP and Others v Council
   (Case T-177/11) (1)

   2011/C 305/12
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-439/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC DRA SPEED Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC DRA SPEED Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
   (Case C-439/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/24
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC DRA SPEED SRL

      Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?

               2.

               Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Case C-439/97)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 72/7
3. Does Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty preclude a                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) of
    provision exempting the sale of wine direct from the             18 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
    vineyard from beverage duty?'                                    29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Sandoz GesmbH v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Finance Office
(2) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                        for Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the
                                                                     following questions:
                                                                     1. Do Article 73b in conjunction with Article 73d (in
                                                                         particular, Article 73d(3)) of the EC Treaty and
Reference      for    a     preliminary    ruling    by    the           Article 1(1) in conjunction with Article 4 of Directive
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of               88/361/EEC (1) concerning the movement of capital
10 December 1997 in the appeals brought by Holger                        preclude the continued application of the first sentence
Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf Weinzierl, Johann                         of the fourth subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8 of
Schachtner,       Konrad       Sonnleitner      and     Ulrich           the 1957 Gebührengesetz (Law on Stamp Duties,
Muckenschnabel           against      the        Unabhängiger            hereinafter the GebG', in the version published in
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg, Additional Party:                  BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) 818/1993), which
       Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                       provides that, where a loan granted by a lender who
                                                                         neither resides in Austria nor maintains his habitual
                       (Case C-438/97)
                                                                         abode, his head office or his seat there is not recorded
                         (98/C 72/12)                                    in an instrument giving rise to liability to pay stamp
                                                                         duty, the books and records which are maintained by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the debtor in accordance with the national rules on
European        Communities        by     order      of    the           taxes and duties and in which the loan is recorded are
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, of               to be deemed to constitute the relevant document?
10 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
29 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals            2. Does the taxation of loans (in so far as they result in a
brought by Holger Warnecke, Dirk Schultz, Rudolf                         flow of capital from one Member State to another)
Weinzierl, Johann Schachtner, Konrad Sonnleitner and                     under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 33 TP 8
Ulrich Muckenschnabel against the Unabhängiger                           GebG constitute arbitrary discrimination or a
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent                        concealed restriction on the free movement of capital
Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg),                          and payments within the meaning of Article 73b of
Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und                    the Treaty?
Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science and Transport) on
the following question:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1988, p. 5.
Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable        Action brought on 23 December 1997 by the Kingdom of
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                    Spain against Commission of the European Communities
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                         (Case C-443/97)
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a                                          (98/C 72/14)
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities on 23 December 1997 by the
                                                                     Kingdom of Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de
                                                                     Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Austrian                 E. Servais.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of
18 December 1997 in the case of Sandoz GesmbH v.
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          Burgenland
                       (Case C-439/97)                               1. annul the Commission Guidelines of 15 October 1997
                         (98/C 72/13)                                    relating to the net financial adjustments pursuant to
                                                                         Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1); and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Austrian                    2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2002 in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumulation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 31/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                    8.2.2003
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          Information                                   K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
                        (2003/C 31/22)                                  which it:
                                                                        1.     Orders that Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00 be
At its meeting on 9 January 2003, the Court of First Instance                  joined for the purposes of the judgment;
decided as follows:
                                                                        2.     Dismisses the applications;
The decisions adopted on 4 July 2002 (OJ 2002 C 202, p. 19)
                                                                        3.     Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs and pay
on the designation of the Presidents of Chamber and the
                                                                               those incurred by the Commission, including those incurred by
composition of the Chambers for the period between 1 Octo-
                                                                               it in the proceedings for interim relief, in the case it has brought;
ber 2002 and 30 September 2003 shall remain in force, after
the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, for the period for
                                                                        4.     Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
which they were adopted.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00 and C 259 of 9.9.00.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 14 November 2002
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00: Rica
Foods (Free Zone) NV and Others v Commission of the                                             of 14 November 2002
                  European Communities ( 1)
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00: Rica Foods (Free
(Association arrangements for the overseas countries and                Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission of the
territories — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Imports of                                        European Communities ( 1)
sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for                  (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and
annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the                     territories — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Imports of
OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of                 sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — EC/OCT cumu-
                             powers)                                    lation of origin — Safeguard measure — Application for
                                                                        annulment — Action for damages — Article 109 of the
                        (2003/C 31/23)                                  OCT Decision — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of
                                                                                powers)
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/24)
In Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00: Rica Foods
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represented
by G. van der Wal, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, Free Trade Foods NV, established in Curaçao
(Netherlands Antilles), Suproco NV, established in Curaçao,             In Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00: Rica Foods (Free
represented by M. Slotboom and J. Coumans, avocats, with an             Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of              G. van der Wal, lawyer, with an address for service in
the Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster),             Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                  (Agents: J. van Bakel, H. Sevenster and H. van der Oosterkamp),
T. van Rijn), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz             and Free Trade Foods NV, established in Curaçao (Antilles
Abad) and, in Cases T-94/00 and T-110/00, by French                     néerlandaises), represented by M. Slotboom, N. Helder and
Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and L. Berheim) — application           J. Coumans, lawers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
first, for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/              against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
2000 of 29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures                 T. van Rijn), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz
for imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar        Abad and López-Monís Gallego) — application first for
sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin (OJ 2000               annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of
L 56, p. 39), and secondly for damages — the Court of First             29 September 2000 providing for the continued application
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,             of safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/17
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64) and secondly for
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                  The applicant, a public limited company whose seat is
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           in Athens, has as its business the production, packaging,
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:                                   standardisation and preservation of, and trade in, agricultural
                                                                             products. It was founded pursuant to an improvement plan
                                                                             drawn up under Regulations (EEC) No 355/77 and No 866/90
1.    Orders that Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 be joined for the              for co-financing by the European Community and the Greek
      purposes of the judgment;                                              State.
2.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                             The applicant submits that, following the adoption of a
3.    Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs, and pay           measure relating to the market by the Greek authorities, it was
      those incurred by the Commission in the case it has brought,           reduced to an extremely poor financial position and its
      including, in the case of the applicant in Case T-350/00, those        operation became problematic.
      incurred by it in the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                             By its application, it accuses the Commission of inaction and
4.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.                        delaying tactics since, notwithstanding the applicant’s repeated
                                                                             requests and its approaches to various Community authorities,
                                                                             the Commission failed:
( 1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01 and C 45 of 10.2.01.
                                                                             —      to abolish the Community financial assistance under
                                                                                Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88 (1);
                                                                             —      to initiate, against the Hellenic Republic, the procedure
                                                                                under Article 226 EC for breach of Community law.
Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the company                             In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipo-                     infringed Regulation No 4253/88, exceeded the limits of
piisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton against the Com-                   its discretion and offended against the principle of equal
            mission of the European Communities                              treatment.
                           (Case T-334/02)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) 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
                           (2003/C 31/25)                                         different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                                operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                                existing financial instruments (OJ No L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1).
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 2002 by the company
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis                Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A.
kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton, whose seat is in Athens                     against the Commission of the European Communities
(Greece), represented by Ioannis Stamoulis, of the Athens Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-344/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                               (2003/C 31/26)
—     allow the present application challenging the failure                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
      of the European Commission to abolish Community
      assistance;
—     declare that the European Commission has unlawfully                    An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
      failed to abolish the Community financial assistance;                  the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
                                                                             abovementioned applicant, represented by G. Belotti, against
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                        the Commission of the European Communities.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Halle by order of that court of 1 October 1997 in the case of Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG v. Landkreis Burgenlandkreis (Case C-393/97)

text:
7.2.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 41/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                to the Duty-Free Regulation and in Article 36 of the
gericht Halle by order of that court of 1 October 1997 in               EC Treaty or on other imperative requirements of the
the case of Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co.                      public interest, are compatible with the provisions of
              KG v. Landkreis Burgenlandkreis                           the Regulation and the Directive?
                       (Case C-393/97)
                         (98/C 41/15)                              2. Do facts (a) to (h) set out in point IV(6) of this order
                                                                        for reference constitute grounds such that a Member
                                                                        State's national restrictions based thereon are
                                                                        compatible with the provisions of the Duty-Free
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Regulation and the Travel Directive?
European      Communities        by  an    order    of   the
Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Halle Administrative Court) of
1 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry           3. May a rule limiting travellers' imports of alcoholic
on 19 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                    drinks, which in this question also includes beer, on
case of Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG v.                    the basis of the duration of the journey be regarded as
Landkreis Burgenlandkreis on the following questions:                   compatible with the provisions of the Duty-Free
                                                                        Regulation and the Travel Directive?
1. Do provisions of the European Union, in particular
                                                                   (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
    Council Directive 94/65/EC of 14 December 1994 (1),                setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
    preclude a national provision under which products of              (OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 1).
    comminuted meat such as minced meat and ground                 (2) Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the
    meat, even if prepared, may be put on the market on                harmonization of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    the date of production only, unless they have been                 administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax
    packed and labelled in an individual package for sale              and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ, English
    to the final consumer or have been frozen or deep                  Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 232).
    frozen?
2. If so, do those provisions of the European Union apply
    also to factual situations in which the production
    plant is in the same State as that in which the
    comminuted meat product such as minced or ground               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
    meat is to be put on the market?                               Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Sala de lo
                                                                   Contencioso-Administrativo) by orders of that court of
                                                                   30 July 1997 in the case of Administración del Estado
(1) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                   against Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa; Co-defendant:
                                                                   Diputación Foral de Guipuzcoa; Intervener: Gobierno
                                                                   Vasco; Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales
                                                                   del Territorio Histórico de Alava Co-defendant:
                                                                   Diputación Foral de Alava; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco;
                                                                   and Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales
                                                                   del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia; Intervener: Gobierno
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin                          Vasco and Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
Käräjäoikeus by order of that court of 5 November 1997
                                                                         (Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97)
in the criminal proceedings against Sami Lasse Juhani
                           Heinonen                                                           (98/C 41/17)
                       (Case C-394/97)
                         (98/C 41/16)                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
                                                                   de Justicia del País Vasco (Sala de lo Contencioso-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Administrativo) (High Court of Justice of the Basque
European Communities by an order of the Helsingin                  Country, Chamber for Contentious Administrative
Käräjäoikeus (Helsinki District Court) of 5 November               Proceedings) of 30 July 1997, which was received at the
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                  Court Registry on 1 December 1997, for a preliminary
25 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                  ruling in the case of Administración del Estado against
criminal proceedings against Sami Lasse Juhani Heinonen            Juntas Generales de Guipuzcoa; Co-defendant: Diputación
on the following questions:                                        Foral de Guipuzcoa; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco;
                                                                   Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del
                                                                   Territorio Histórico de Alava Co-defendant: Diputación
1. May the Duty-Free Regulation (1) and the Travel                 Foral de Alava; Intervener: Gobierno Vasco; and
    Directive (2) be interpreted as meaning that national          Administración del Estado against Juntas Generales del
    limits laid down by Member States on imports by                Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia; Intervener: Gobierno
    travellers of beer and other alcoholic drinks, based on        Vasco and Diputación Foral de Bizkaia on the following
    grounds referred to in the ninth recital in the preamble       question:


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 March 1995 in Case T-6/95 R: Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop. arl v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 137/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
Regulation ( EC ) No 2557/94 of 19 October 1994 imposing               Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of calcium metal             Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
originating in the People's Republic of China and Russia ( OJ          address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
1994 L 270, p. 27 ) — the President of the Court of First              Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
Instance made an order on 24 February 1995 , the operative             the European Communities ( Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of the implementation of the
                                                                       decision of 18 January 1995 whereby the appointing
1 . the application for suspension of the operation of the             authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
     Regulation is dismissed;                                          of removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to
                                                                       retirement pension provided for by Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the
2 . there is no need to rule on the applications to                    Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
     intervene;                                                        — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       on 31 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
3.   the costs are reserved.                                           follows :
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                       2.   the costs are reserved.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 15 March 1995
in Case T-6/95 R: Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop, arl v.
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 95/C 137/54 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 April 1995
In Case T-6/95 R : Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop , arl, having         in    Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
its registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone                 Commission of the European Communities
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue                                            ( 95/C 137/56 )
Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of
21 December 1994 introducing a further derogation from                 In Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
the detailed rules for the delivery by producers of the table          spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
wine they are required to deliver for compulsory distillation          residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
in respect of the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ 1994 L 332, p. 32 )           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel, with an address for
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer,
on 15 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as                   1 Rue Roger Barthel, Bereldange, v. Commission of the
follows :
                                                                       European Communities (Agents : J. Griesmar, J. Burrall and
                                                                       B. Wagenbaur ) — application for interim measures
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 concerning, primarily, an order for suspension of the
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       implementation of an alleged decision of the Luxembourg
                                                                       Claims Office whereby the applicant was to cease to be
                                                                       covered by the sickness insurance scheme common to the
                                                                       institutions of the European Communities with effect from
                                                                       31 March 1995 , and, as a subsidiary plea, an order that such
                                                                       cover should not cease on the expiry of the period prescribed
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  by Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               European Communities, namely one year after the date of
                                                                       the decree absolute of divorce of the applicant — the
                      of 31 March 1995                                 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the               10 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                    European Communities
                         ( 95 /C 137/55 )                              1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2.   the costs are reserved.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case T-500/11: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2012 — Germany v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/29

         Order of the General Court of 9 February 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-500/11) (1)

   2012/C 89/50
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1999 in Case C-94/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (represented by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd, May & Baker Ltd (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel imports)

text:
4.3.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 63/3
The second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of          Where it is sought to import medicinal product X from Member
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987                State A into Member State B, it is permissible for the person who
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system       proposes to place the imported product upon the market in Member
of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as         State B to seek and obtain a parallel import licence from the
meaning that the countries parties to the Charter of the Cooperation      competent authority in Member State B without complying with all
Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are not regarded, where           the requirements of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January
products are processed before being cleared through customs on the        1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law,
territory of one of those countries and then exported to others, as a     regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products
single non-member country into which all the products resulting from      (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20), as amended by
that processing have been imported.                                       Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, if:
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                          — medicinal product X is the subject of a marketing authorisation
                                                                              granted in Member State A and was the subject of a marketing
                                                                              authorisation which has ceased to have effect in Member State B;
                                                                          — medicinal product Y is the subject of a marketing authorisation
                                                                              granted in Member State B, but is not the subject of a marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in Member State A;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 December 1999                                 — medicinal product X has the same active ingredients and
                                                                              therapeutic effect as medicinal product Y, but does not use the
                                                                              same excipients and is manufactured by a different manufacturing
in Case C-94/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      process, where the competent authority in Member State B is in
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                       a position to verify that medicinal product X complies with the
Bench Division): The Queen v The Licensing Authority                          requirements relating to quality, efficacy and safety in normal
established by the Medicines Act 1968 (represented by                         conditions of use and is in a position to ensure normal
the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Rhône-Poulenc                        pharmacovigilance;
                 Rorer Ltd, May & Baker Ltd (1)
(Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel                  — the marketing authorisations referred to above were granted to
                              imports)                                        different members of the same group of companies and the
                                                                              manufacturers of medicinal products X and Y are also members
                           (2000/C 63/05)                                     of that group of companies; and
                    (Language of the case: English)                       — companies within the same group as the holder of the marketing
                                                                              authorisation for product X which has been withdrawn in
                                                                              Member State B continue to manufacture and market product X
In Case C-94/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  in Member States other than Member State B.
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, United
Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between The Queen and The Licensing                     In such a situation, the competent authority is not required to take
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (represented              into consideration the fact that medicinal product Y was developed
by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Rhône-Poulenc                 and introduced in order to provide a particular benefit to public
Rorer Ltd, May & Baker Ltd — on the interpretation of Council             health which medicinal product X does not provide and/or that that
Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation               particular benefit to public health would not be achieved if product X
of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              and product Y were both on the market in Member State B at the
action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special                same time.
Edition 1965-1966, p. 20), as amended, in particular, by
Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 214,
p. 22), and of the provisions of Community law relating to the
grant of parallel import licences for medicinal products —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in
which it has ruled:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court of 15-17 April 1997 in the case of Società Appia Srl v. (1) Comune di Cagliari and (2) Società Cagliari Calcio SpA (Case C-264/97)

text:
C 271 / 10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
       application of review procedures to the award of                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Chamber
       public supply and public works contracts, from which                 of the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal ), Douai, by
       there derives an individual right to have review                     judgment of that court of 27 June 1997 in the case of Karl
        proceedings conducted before authorities or courts                                  Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille
        which comply with the provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of                                        ( Case C-261 /97 )
        Directive 89/665/EEC, to be interpreted as being
        sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of                                         ( 97/C 271/15 )
        non-transposition of the directive in question by the
        Member State, an individual may successfully assert                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        that legal right against the Member State in legal                  European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
        proceedings ?                                                       ( Social Chamber), Douai, of 27 June 1997, received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Karl Heinz Baumann v. URSSAF Lille on the
3 . Are the provisions of Article 41 of Directive 92/50/
        EEC (2 ), in conjunction with Directive 89/665/EEC,                 following question:
        which are the basis of an individual 's right to have
        review proceedings conducted, to be interpreted as                  Is Article 14a (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
        meaning that a national court with the characteristics              14 June 1971 ( J ) to be interpreted as meaning that, in
        of the Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fur Karnten                    order to be exempt from paying contributions in France,
        may, when conducting review proceedings on the basis                an independent worker employed in two Member States
        of national provisions such as Paragraph 59 et seq. of              and living in another Member State must be registered
        the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz and the                        with a compulsory scheme for self-employed workers in
        regulations relating thereto, disregard those provisions            that other Member State ?
        if they prevent the carrying out of review proceedings
        under the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz for the                  (') On the application of social security schemes to employed
        award of service contracts, and therefore nevertheless                   persons and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
        conduct review proceedings in accordance with                            English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ).
        Section 8 of the Carinthian Auftragsvergabegesetz ?
4 . Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case ( 3 ),
        with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC, to
        be classified as services coming under Annex IA,
        Category No 12, of Directive 92/50/EEC ( architectural              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
        services; engineering services and integrated                       Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
        engineering services; urban planning and landscape                  of 15—17 April 1997 in the case of Societa Appia Sri v.
        architectural services; related scientific and technical            ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari and ( 2 ) Società Cagliari Calcio
       consulting services; technical testing and analysis                                                    SpA
        services )?                                                                                ( Case C-264/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 / 16 )
5 . Are the provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC to be
       interpreted as satisfying the conditions laid down in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       the judgment in Case 41 /74 Van Duyn ( paragraph 12 )                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
       for the direct applicability of a Community directive,               Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
       with the result that services coming under Annex IA of               Sardinia ) of 15—17 April 1997, received at the Court
       the directive are to be awarded under the procedure                  Registry on 21 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
       therein mentioned, or are the relevant provisions of                 case of Societa Appia Sri v. ( 1 ) Comune di Cagliari
       the directive in connection with the services mentioned
                                                                            (Municipality of Cagliari ) and (2 ) Societa Cagliari Calcio
       in Annex IA capable of fulfilling the conditions laid                SpA on the following questions :
       down in the said case ?
                                                                            whether Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50 (*) and the
(') OJ L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 33 .                                     provisions therein referred to require a public
( 2 ) OJ L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992 , p. 1 .                                      administration ( in this case a Municipality ), which intends
(3 ) Consulting engineers' services for technical advice and
      planning and the planning and processing works for the                granting a concession in respect of facilities ( in this case a
      construction of a children's hospital ( parent and child centre )     municipal stadium ) to third parties that are considered to
      at the Landeskrankenhaus Klagenfurt with the corresponding            be particularly well qualified, with a view to bringing
      out-patient facilities, operating theatre, x-ray laboratory and       them under single management, to entrust the services
      five children 's wards and a children's surgical ward with a          covered by that directive ( in this case advertising services )
      total of 132 beds and a usable area of c . 8 100 m2; planning         to be carried out within the facilities to which the
      services for the sanitary, heating and air installations with air     concession relates by means of the procedures laid down
      conditioning and the electrical and high and low-voltage              by the abovementioned Article 8 , without giving
      current installations, structural and constructional engineering
      servicds, and planning services for the medical installations.
                                                                            preference to the concessionaire; if the Court should
                                                                            consider that in such circumstances the Administration is
                                                                            required to comply with Article 8 of Directive 92/50, it is
                                                                            necessary to ascertain whether compliance with that
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 271 / 11
legislation must necessarily be ensured by the Municipality                 gericht Niedersachsen ( Higher Labour Court of Lower
itself, which must proceed to announce the requisite                        Saxony ) of 8 November 1996, which were received at the
tendering procedures, or whether it may also be ensured                     Court Registry on 24 July 1997, for preliminary rulings in
by the concessionaire, to which the relevant powers are                     the cases of Deutsche Post AG v. Elisabeth Sievers ( Case
transferred; finally, if it should be considered that                       C-270/97) and Deutsche Post AG v. Brunhilde Schrage
compliance with that obligation may also be ensured by                      ( Case C-271/97) on the following questions:
the concessionaire, it is necessary to ascertain whether the
latter has the option of choosing whether to manage the
                                                                            1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of
service itself or whether it must necessarily entrust it to
                                                                                application or validity ( under the second
third parties.
                                                                                paragraph of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty ) over national provisions of the Member
( 1 ) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, relating to the                     States which could or would be applicable, by way
      coordination of procedures for the award of public service                       of concurrence of claims, to the same factual
      contracts, OJ L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p. 1 .
                                                                                situation and with the same aim of supporting
                                                                                claims to equal treatment in occupational pension
                                                                                schemes, as for example in Germany — generally
                                                                                — the employment law principle of equal
                                                                                treatment or — specifically — Paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of
                                                                                the Beschaftigungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Superieure                              Promotion Law ) 1985 ?
de Justice ( High Court of Justice ) of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 26 June 1997                             ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
in the case of Eric Coursier v. Fortis Bank and Martine                                conflict, where Community law confers benefits
                         Coursier, nee Bellami                                         under occupational pension schemes only if and in
                           ( Case C-267/97 )                                           so far as they are attributable to periods of
                                                                                employment prior to 17 May 1990, whereas the
                             ( 97/C 271/ 17)                                           national provisions regulate the same factual
                                                                                situation differently in that they do not exclude
                                                                                retroactive effect, apply generally ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour                                     ( c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
Superieure de Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                                 objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
of 26 June 1997, received at the Court Registry on 22 July                             social objective, namely the creation of equal
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eric Coursier                            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?
v. Fortis Bank and Martine Coursier, nee Bellami, on the
following question:
                                                                            2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                                Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
Does a judgment delivered in the State of origin in the                          in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
context of a court-supervised liquidation — a matter                             require national provisions on equal treatment with
which is excluded from the scope of the Brussels                                 respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
Convention — and which is not open to recognition under                          to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
the national law of the State in which enforcement is                            requirements and limitations ( prohibition of
sought, but which, in the State in which it was given,                           retroactive effect) of Community law ?
confers on one of the parties immunity from execution of
the judgment whose enforcement is sought, affect the
quality of enforceability which, according to the first
paragraph of Article 31 of the Convention, a judgment
must possess in order to be recognized and enforced ?
                                                                            Action brought on 28 July 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-272/97 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                                             97/C 271 / 19
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by orders of that court
of 8 November 1996 in the cases of Deutsche Post AG v.
         ( 1 ) Elisabeth Sievers and (2 ) Brunhilde Schrage                 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                   ( Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 )
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                            Communities on 28 July 1997 by the Commission of the
                               97/C 271 / 18 )                              European Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro
                                                                            and Jiirgen Grunwald, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Gomez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
European Communities by orders of the Landesarbeits                         Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-224/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2014 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-226/12: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/17

         Appeal brought on 7 May 2014 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-226/12: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-224/14 P)
   2014/C 282/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz, A. K. Marx, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Judgement of the General Court of 27 February 2014 (Case T-226/12);

               —

               in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1) as sought in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               order the OHIM as defendant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With the Application for Appeal, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG raises three pleas in law against the contested judgement:

               1)

               infringement of Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR (1)
                   (2) and Rule 22 (3) and (4) of CTMIR (3)
                   (4) in conjunction with Art. 15 (1) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for proof of genuine use of the opposition mark within the meaning of these provisions;

               2)

               infringement of Art. 15 (1) (a) CTMR in conjunction with Art. 42 (2) and (3) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for considering the use of the opposition mark in a different form than the registered to constitute genuine use within the meaning of Art. 15 (1) CTMR;

               3)

               infringement of Art. 8 (1) (b) CTMR as the General Court misinterpreted the requirements on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

         The main arguments can be summarized as follows:
   Regarding plea (1), the General Court erred in law in finding that the Board of Appeal correctly considered three undated photographs together with some invoices as solid and objective evidence, sufficient for proving genuine use of the opposition mark, particularly with regard to the nature of use.
   Regarding plea (2), the General Court disregarded the exceptional character of Art. 15 (1) (a) CTMR that requires, for reasons of legal certainty and predictability, strict and narrow interpretation, an assessment of all elements of the mark in its registered form. The General Court thus erred in law when confirming the Board of Appeal’s finding that the used form of the mark had constituted genuine use as it did not alter the distinctive character of the opposition mark in its registered form as the Board of Appeal did not take into consideration all elements of the opposition mark.
   Regarding plea (3), the General Court misinterpreted Art. 8 (1) (b) CTMR as, in its assessment of the Board of Appeal’s findings on the similarity of the signs and the likelihood of confusion, it did not take adequately into consideration that, firstly, in the case at hand the degree of attention of the relevant public is quite high, secondly, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not tend to analyse its various details and, thirdly, it is only if all other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity of signs can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. If these aspects had been taken into consideration correctly, a likelihood of confusion could not have been found.
   As the contested judgement is, thus, not in accordance with the provisions of the CTMR, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG requests its annulment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      (2)  OJ L 78, p. 1

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

      (4)  OJ L 303, p. 1


title: Case T-66/01: Action brought on 20 March 2001 by Imperial Chemical Industries plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 150/33
Action brought on 20 March 2001 by Imperial Chemical                      ICI claims that the Commission has now retaken the 1990
Industries plc against the Commission of the European                     Article 86 decision, albeit with a number of additions and
                           Communities                                    amendments to the text, and re-imposed the original fine of
                                                                          EUR 10 million. It further claims that no new administrative
                                                                          proceedings were initiated in relation to the decision. The
                          (Case T-66/01)
                                                                          Commission apparently chose to rely on the administrative
                                                                          proceedings which preceded the 1990 Article 85 and
                         (2001/C 150/64)                                  Article 86 decisions.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          —      the fine in question has been imposed after the expiry of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the time-limits laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 (3);
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 March 2001 by Imperial                         —      the Commission has violated the fundamental right to
Chemical Industries plc, represented by David Vaughan QC,                        proceedings within a reasonable time because of the
David Anderson QC, Sarah Lee, Shirley Turner, Sarah Berwick                      passage of time since the matters complained of and the
and Richard Coles                                                                commencement of the Commission’s investigation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      the defendant has disregarded the non bis in idem
                                                                                principle;
—      annul the Commission Decision dated 13 December
       2000 in Case No COMP/33.133-D: Soda Ash — ICI;                     —      there should have been a fresh administrative procedure
                                                                                and the failure to conduct one has resulted in infringe-
—      cancel or reduce the fine imposed on ICI by Article 2 of                  ment of essential procedural requirements; and
       the decision;
                                                                          —      the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts, as regards
—      order the Commission to pay ICI’s costs.                                  the applicant’s dominance and abuse, as well as the
                                                                                question relating to effect on trade between Member
                                                                                States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Cases T-36/91 and T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR
                                                                              II-1847, 1905.
The contested decision in the present case is based upon a
                                                                          (2) Case C-286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I — 2341.
finding by the Commission that from about 1983 ‘at least up               (3) Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November
to the end of 1989’:                                                          1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the
                                                                              enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European
—      The applicant (ICI) held a dominant position in the                    Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OL
       market for soda ash in the United Kingdom;                             L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1).
—      ICI abused that dominant position by applying to its
       major customers a system of loyalty rebates, discounts by
       reference to marginal tonnage (top slice rebates), and
       contractual arrangements tending to ensure an effective
       exclusivity of supply for ICI, and other devices which had
       the object and effect of tying such customers to ICI and
       of excluding competitors; and
                                                                          Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione
                                                                          against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
—      ICI’s conduct had an appreciable effect on trade between
       Member States.
                                                                                (Case T-70/01)
According to ICI, this decision is a retaking ten years on of an
annulled Commission decision first taken in 1990 against ICI                                        (2001/C 150/65)
itself under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) in
relation to alleged infringements in the soda ash market. Also
in 1990 the Commission took a decision against ICI under                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) in relation to
alleged infringements of that article in the same market. Both
decisions were annulled in their entirety on 29 June 1995 (1).            An action against the Court of Justice of the European
The appeal lodged by the Commission, relating to Case                     Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
T-37/91, was dismissed by the Court of Justice (2). The                   of the European Communities on 26 March 2001 by Pier
judgment in Case T-36/91 was never appealed.                              V. Amione, represented by Riccardo Ventura, avvocato.


title: Case T-281/01: Action brought on 8 November 2001 by Hubert Huygens against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/49
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     annul the decision of the Director of the OPOCE, in
                                                                               his capacity as appointing authority, concerning the
                                                                               promotion of the four officials of the Publications Office
                                                                               in the 2000 promotions procedure, published in the
The applicant in the present case objects to the delay with                    Administrative Notices of 6 April 2000;
which the appointing authority drew up his staff report for the
periods 1995 to 1997 and 1997 to 1999. That delay, in his
view, played a decisive role in his failure to be promoted to
Grade B 1.                                                               —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations,
the general provisions implementing it and breach of the
principle of sound administration. The applicant also pleads
failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of             Pleas in law and main arguments
officials.
                                                                         The applicant seeks, first, compensation for the damage
                                                                         suffered as a result of substantial delay, attributable to the
                                                                         administration, in the reporting procedure for the period
                                                                         1997/1999. He points out in that respect that the reporting
                                                                         procedure should normally have started on 1 April 1999 and
                                                                         ended before 31 December 1999, whereas in fact it did not
Action brought on 8 November 2001 by Hubert Huygens                      commence until December 1999 and was not completed
    against Commission of the European Communities                       until April 2000. Meanwhile, the promotions committee had
                                                                         finished its work, without being in possession of a complete
                                                                         and definitive staff report on the applicant and, at the
                         (Case T-281/01)                                 conclusion of the procedure, the applicant was not promoted
                                                                         to Grade B 1. The applicant is of the view that the fact that the
                                                                         administration did not draw up his staff report in time
                          (2002/C 3/85)                                  constitutes an administrative fault which caused him material
                                                                         damage, inasmuch as the progress of his career may be affected
                                                                         by it, and non-material damage relating to the state of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        uncertainty and unease in which he finds himself with regard
                                                                         to his professional future.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Secondly, the applicant contests the Commission’s decision
European Communities on 8 November 2001 by Hubert                        not to promote him and the decisions to promote 54 other
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             officials, claiming:
Nyssens, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         —     infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-
                                                                               ment and of sound administration;
—     order the Commission to pay him EUR 27 700 as
      compensation for material damage, in the event that the
      applicant should not obtain his promotion to Grade B 1             —     error of assessment of his merits; and
      in the 2000 promotions procedure on account of the
      absence of a staff report;
                                                                         —     infringement of the guide to staff reporting, inasmuch as
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant                             the system for quantifying marks was applied, contrary
      EUR 3 000 in compensation for non-material damage;                       to Annex I to the guide.
—     annul the decision of the Commission to promote the
      54 officials deemed most worthy of promotion to Grade
      B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure and, in any event,


title: Case T-188/09: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/51

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)
      (Case T-188/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 25/100)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Residencias Universitarias, SA (Valencia, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2009 (Case R 471/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Residencias Universitarias, SA and Galileo International Technology, LLC.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-207/09: Action brought on 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/20

         Action brought on 9 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-207/09)
   2009/C 205/35
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and A. Tokár, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by using the services of organisations which are not recognised within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 94/57/EC (1) for the purposes of undertaking inspections and surveys provided for in Article 3 of the Directive, the Slovak Republic failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that article;

               —

               order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Slovak Republic used the services of organisations which are not recognised as classification societies within the meaning of Directive 94/57/EC and, according to the Commission’s information, failed to terminate the authorisation given to such organisations. Moreover, since the Slovak Republic has failed to create an appropriate legislative framework to prevent any future authorisation of organisations which are not recognised as classification societies, there is a danger that similar cases of incorrect application of Directive 94/57/EC, such as that forming the subject matter of this action, will be repeated.

      (1)  Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations (OJ 1994 L 319, p. 20).


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-100/02 and T-102/02

text:
C 55/42                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     8.3.2003
as the Commission changed the legal assessment of the                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-100/02 and
infringements without offering the applicant the possibility of                                        T-102/02 (1)
responding to it during the administrative proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/100)
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                              (Language of the Case: English)
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13 of 21.2.1962, p. 204).
                                                                            By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
                                                                            Cases T-100/02 and T-102/02: EVC International N.V. v
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities.
         Removal from the register of Case T-96/01 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                           (2003/C 55/98)
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-170/02 (1)
By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2003/C 55/101)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-96/01: Rodolfos Maslias v European Parliament.                                                (Language of the Case: French)
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                            By order of 6 December 2002 the President of the Second
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-170/02: Maria Rosaria Ragazzini v European Parliament.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-99/02 and
                             T-101/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 55/99)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/02 ( 1).
                    (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/102)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined                 By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Third
Cases T-99/02 and T-101/02: Ineos N.V. v Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-295/02: Koninklijke BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.                                                European Communities.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.