title: Case T-862/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/48

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)
   (Case T-862/16)
   (2017/C 038/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: fritz-kulturgüter GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schindler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Oeiras Carnaxide, Portugal)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘fritz-wasser’ — Application No 12 314 753

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2016 in Case R 1510/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is dismissed in its entirety;

               —

               allow application No 012 314 753 to proceeding to registration;

               —

               order the opponent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and order the defendant to pay the remainder of the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-297/98 P: SCA Holding Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement — Fines — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 45/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 16 November 2000                                                        of 16 November 2000
in Case C-297/98 P: SCA Holding Ltd v Commission of                        in Case C-298/98 P: Metsä-Serla Sales Oy v Commission
                 the European Communities (1)                                             of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty                     (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement —                  (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the
Fines — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)                   amount — Statement of reasons — Cooperation during the
                                                                                administrative procedure)
                           (2001/C 45/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/08)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-297/98 P, SCA Holding Ltd, established in Aylesford
(United Kingdom), represented by J. Pheasant and N. Bromfield,             In Case C-298/98 P, Metsä-Serla Sales Oy, formerly Finnish
solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Board Mills Association (Finnboard), established in Espoo
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal                        (Finland), represented by H. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 and H.-J. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Mannheim, with an address
European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
sition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-327/94 SCA Holding v                      Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal against the judgment of the
Commission [1998] ECR II-1373, seeking to have that judg-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
ment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                   Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     T-338/94 Finnboard v Commission [1998] ECR II-1617,
J. Currall, Legal Adviser, and R. Lyal, acting as Agents — the             seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President               proceedings being Commission of the European Communities,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                   represented by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                assisted by D. Schroeder — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November                   composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
2000 in which it:                                                          M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
                                                                           L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                which it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders SCA Holding Ltd to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders Metsä-Serla Sales Oy to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: Case C-7/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fabio Caronna (Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 77 — Wholesale distribution of medicinal products — Mandatory special authorisation for pharmacists — Conditions for granting)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fabio Caronna
   (Case C-7/11) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 77 - Wholesale distribution of medicinal products - Mandatory special authorisation for pharmacists - Conditions for granting)
   2012/C 258/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Palermo

      Party in the main proceedings

   Fabio Caronna

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Palermo –Interpretation of recital 36 and Articles 76 to 84 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Wholesale distribution of medicinal products — Conditions under which authorisation may be granted for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products — National legislation which makes the wholesale distribution of medicinal products by pharmacists and persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public subject to the requirement to obtain an authorisation imposed on wholesale distributors — Whether permissible

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Commission Directive 2009/120/EC of 14 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products is applicable to a pharmacist who, as a natural person, is also authorised under domestic law to operate as a wholesaler in medicinal products.

               2.

               A pharmacist who is also authorised under domestic law to operate as a wholesaler in medicinal products must satisfy all the requirements imposed on applicants for and holders of authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products in Articles 79 to 82 of the Directive.

               3.

               That interpretation cannot, of itself and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, give rise to or aggravate liability in criminal law on the part of a pharmacist who has engaged in activity as a wholesale distributor in medicinal products without the requisite authorisation.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-417/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS — Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)
   (Case T-417/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS - Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No injury to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 138/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case C-667/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht v Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Misleading commercial practice — Pyramid promotional scheme — Contributions paid by new members and compensation received by existing members — Indirect financial link)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht v Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW
   (Case C-667/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Misleading commercial practice - Pyramid promotional scheme - Contributions paid by new members and compensation received by existing members - Indirect financial link))
   (2017/C 046/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV van publiek recht

      Defendants: Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as allowing a commercial practice to be classified as a ‘pyramid promotional scheme’ even if there is only an indirect link between the contributions paid by new members of the scheme and the compensation paid to existing members.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-141/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli
   (Case C-141/16)
   (2016/C 191/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

      Respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

      Question referred

   Do Articles 56 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union itself, on gambling and betting services such as the judgments in Gambelli, Placanica and Costa and Cifone, on tax discrimination such as the judgments in Lindman, Commission v Spain, and Bianco and Fabretti, and to the EU law principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation, under consideration in the present dispute, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of betting operators, established in a different EU Member State, in particular, those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly, those betting operators, jointly with their national intermediaries, liable, even retrospectively, to the Single Tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011?


title: Case C-474/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Thi Ly Pham v Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 16(1) — Detention for the purpose of removal — Detention in prison accommodation — Possibility of detaining a third-country national with ordinary prisoners where he has given his consent)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/23

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Thi Ly Pham v Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik
   (Case C-474/13) (1)

   ((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Possibility of detaining a third-country national with ordinary prisoners where he has given his consent))
   2014/C 315/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thi Ly Pham

      Defendant: Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second sentence of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to detain a third-country national for the purpose of removal in prison accommodation together with ordinary prisoners even if the third-country national consents thereto.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case T-533/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Alteration of the funding scheme of the Spanish radio and television broadcasting organisation (RTVE) — Commission decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/17

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 — DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission
   (Case T-533/10 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Alteration of the funding scheme of the Spanish radio and television broadcasting organisation (RTVE) - Commission decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
   2011/C 219/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and M. Ganino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Parties intervening in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado del Estado) and Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española, SA (RTVE) (Madrid, Spain) (represented by A. Martínez Sánchez, A. Vázquez-Guillén Fernández de la Riva and J. Rodríguez Ordóñez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for RTVE (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-3/07: Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/5

         Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-3/07)
   (2007/C 69/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 321, 2003, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 1999 in Case C-170/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide services - Maritime transport)

text:
C 366/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 14 September 1999                                                             (First Chamber)
in Case C-310/97 P: Commission of the European Com-                                              of 14 September 1999
 munities v AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others (1)
                                                                          in Case C-170/98: Commission of the European Communi-
(Appeal — Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                       annulling a measure)
                                                                          (Failure to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC)
                         (1999/C 366/02)                                  No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services — Maritime
                                                                                transport)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                    (1999/C 366/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-310/97 P: Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: W. Wils) — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 July 1997 in Case                                        in the European Court Reports)
T-227/95 AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others v Com-
mission [1997] ECR II-1185, seeking to have that judgment                 In Case C-170/98: Commission of the European Communities
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being AssiDomän             (Agents: Frank Benyon and Bernard Mongin) v Kingdom of
Kraft Products AB, established in Stockholm, Sweden, Igge-
                                                                          Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a declaration
sunds Bruk AB, established in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Korsnäs               that, by failing either to adjust the agreement with the Republic
AB, established in Gävle, Sweden, MoDo Paper AB, established              of Zaire in such a way as to provide for fair, free and
in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Södra Cell AB, established in Växjö,
                                                                          non-discriminatory access by Community nationals to the
Sweden, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, established in Falun,             cargo shares due to Belgium or to denounce that agreement,
Sweden, Svenska Cellulosa AB, established in Sundsvall,
                                                                          the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Sweden, represented by J.E. Pheasant, Solicitor, with an address
                                                                          under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
                                                                          maritime transport between Member States and between
guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                          Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), in
G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of the Chambers, J.C. Moitin-           particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof — the Court (First
ho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
                                                                          D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Per-
R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                    gola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
General; A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          ment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Declares that, by failing either to adjust the agreement with the
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July          Republic of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
    1997 in Case T-227/95 AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others                 in such a way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
    v Commission;                                                             access by Community nationals to the cargo shares due to
                                                                              Belgium or to denounce that agreement, the Kingdom of Belgium
2. Dismisses the application for annulment lodged on 15 December              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC)
    1995 by AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others before the                 No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
    Court of First Instance;                                                  freedom to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                              Member States and between Member States and third countries,
3. Orders AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and the other respondents               in particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof;
    to bear all the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance
    and the Court of Justice.                                             2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                            (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Case C-61/06: Order of the President of the Court of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-61/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/48)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/1

         2010/C 113/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 100, 17.4.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 80, 27.3.2010

      OJ C 63, 13.3.2010

      OJ C 51, 27.2.2010

      OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

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


23.11.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 289/19
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                   Removal from the register of Case C-335/01 ( 1)
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                                        (2002/C 289/35)
Community.
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        By order of 23 September 2002 the President of the Court of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-335/01: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v French Republic.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive into Greek law.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 42.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-43/02 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/01 P        (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/36)
                         (2002/C 289/33)
                                                                        By order of 29 August 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                    from the register of Case C-43/02 (Referral for a preliminary
the register of Case C-141/01 P: Confederazione Generale                ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart): Landesbausparkasse
dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Com-
                                                                        Baden-Württemberg v Elisabeth Huttenlocher.
mission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-295/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-59/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 289/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/37)
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        By order of 12 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-295/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by         of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato): Fontaneto Industria          the register of Case C-59/02: Commission of the European
Alimentare Srl v ASL No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione.
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                            (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2003 in Case T-201/02: Pierre Tomarchio v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials — Refusal by the parent institution of an official to reclassify him — Action for annulment brought against the institution to which he was transferred — Inadmissible)

text:
C 70/22                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            22.3.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Rechtsanwalt, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties (Agent: J. Currall) and European Parliament (Agents:
                         of 23 January 2003                                 U. Rösslein and L. G. Knudsen) — application for the
                                                                            annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 28 May 2001
in Case T-181/01: Chantal Hectors v European Parlia-                        refusing to apply to the applicant’s pension the coefficient
                                ment ( 1)                                   applicable to recipients of a Community pension resident in
                                                                            Germany pursuant to Article 82 of the Staff Regulations —
(Officials — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Grounds                        the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
— Manifest error of assessment — Equal treatment of men                     B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,
                             and women)                                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 11 December
                                                                            2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2003/C 70/35)
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-181/01: Chantal Hectors, residing in Brussels,                    (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.
represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against
European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. F. de
Wachter) — application, in the first place, for annulment of
the decisions taken by the authority empowered to conclude
contracts of employment appointing Mr B to the post of
Dutch-language administrator in the European People’s Party                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Group within
the European Parliament and rejecting the applicant’s candi-
dature for that post and, second, for an order that the                                             of 16 January 2003
Parliament pay compensation in respect of the material and
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have                      in Case T-201/02: Pierre Tomarchio v Court of Auditors
suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                    of the European Communities ( 1)
composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator,             (Officials — Refusal by the parent institution of an official
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,                 to reclassify him — Action for annulment brought against
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  the institution to which he was transferred — Inadmissible)
1.     The application is dismissed;                                                                  (2003/C 70/37)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.01.
                                                                            In Case T-201/02: Pierre Tomarchio, a former official of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Nancy (France), represent-
                                                                            ed by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier and P. Giusta) — appli-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 cation for annulment of the measure adopted by the Court of
                                                                            Auditors on 26 February 2002 in connection with the
                       of 11 December 2002                                  applicant’s request for reclassification — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, Presi-
in Case T-82/02: Wolf-Dieter Yorck von Wartenburg v                         dent, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung,
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                         Registrar, has made an order on 16 January 2003, the operative
                                                                            part of which is as follows:
(Officials — Period within which an action must be brought
                    — Manifest inadmissibility)                             1.    The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.
                           (2003/C 70/36)                                   2.    The applicant’s request for joinder of Cases T-173/02 and
                                                                                T-201/02 is rejected.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            3.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
In Case T-82/02: Wolf-Dieter Yorck von Wartenburg, a former                 (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
temporary agent of the European Parliament, residing in
Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. R. Heyland,


title: Case T-14/10: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ‘carcheck’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)
   (Case T-14/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘carcheck’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 145/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘carcheck’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-5/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 45 TFEU — Free movement of workers — National legislation under which a driver using a vehicle with foreign registration plates must prove the lawfulness of its use on the spot, during a police inspection, on pain of a fine)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/8

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
   (Case C-5/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 45 TFEU - Free movement of workers - National legislation under which a driver using a vehicle with foreign registration plates must prove the lawfulness of its use on the spot, during a police inspection, on pain of a fine))
   2014/C 102/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Interpretation of the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial — National legislation on road traffic under which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the national authorities may be used on the roads in the national territory, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow a derogation from that provision may be established only during an inspection — Obligation for a person residing in Member State A, working in Member State B and having, for the purposes of travelling to his workplace, the use of a vehicle owned by his employer and bearing registration plates from Member State B, to prove during the police inspection that he is lawfully using the vehicle in Member State A — No possibility for the driver of the vehicle to provide the proof of that lawful use subsequently in an administrative procedure.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in principle, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Member State in question may be used on the roads in that Member State and a resident of that Member State who seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the ground that he uses a vehicle made available to him by his employer established in another Member State, must be able to prove on the spot, during a police inspection, that he fulfils the requirements for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without there being any possibility of an exemption from that fine.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Action brought on 10 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-102/97)

text:
No C 142/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10 . 5 . 97
Deduction of the VAT liable to be paid in connection with             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
real property acquired by a taxable person in joint
ownership or co-ownership with individuals must be                    The treatment of waste oil is regulated in the Federal
authorized immediately and unconditionally, in proportion             Republic of Germany primarily by the Abfallgesetz ( Law
of course to the part of the property used for business               on Waste Products ) ( until 6 October 1996 ) and the
purposes .                                                            Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz ( Law on Economic
                                                                      Cycles and Waste Products) ( since 7 Oktober 1996 ) and
Excluding that deduction constitutes a breach of the                  by the subordinate legislation enacted pursuant thereto
principle of neutrality of the tax which, where the                   ( the Altolverordnung ( Regulation on Waste Oils ), the Ab
property is resold, would be charged twice on the same                fallbestimmungsverordnung ( Regulation on dealing with
taxable amount, that is to say the price of that part of the          Waste Products ), the Reststoffbestimmungsverordnung
property used for business purposes. Where property is                ( Regulation dealing with Residual Matter ) and the Abfall
resold, the trader or other self-employed person carries out          und Reststoffiiberwachungsverordnung ( Regulation on the
a taxable transfer and is liable to pay to the tax                    Control of Waste Products and Residual Matter)). None
authorities the VAT received from the purchaser of the                of the provisions of that legislation gives priority to the
property, even though that same taxable person, on his                regeneration of waste oils . According to paragraph 6 ( 1 )
purchase of that same property, had paid the VAT charged              of the Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz ( BGB1 . I
him hy the vendor without any possibility of deduction for            1994, p. 2705 ), waste products may be used as materials
the part to be used for business purposes, in short being             or used for energy purposes. Priority is given to whichever
treated as though he were the end-user of the entire                  form of utilization is better adapted to the environment.
property.                                                             Rules may be adopted giving priority either to use for
                                                                      material purposes or to utilization for energy purposes,
In essence, by providing for that derogation from the                 depending on which use constitutes a better solution in
principle that VAT paid on business costs should be                   environmental terms . Although discussion took place at
deductible, the Italian legislature has arbitrarily introduced        the time of the adoption of the Kreislaufwirtschafts- und
an irrebuttable presumption of evasion in relation to all             Abfallgesetz as to whether priority should be given to
purchases by taxable persons jointly with private                     regeneration, such priority was not ultimately provided for
individuals of property intended for undifferentiated use,            in that Law. This is contrary to the wording of Article 3(1 )
without taking into account the actual, even though                   of Directive 75/439/EEC, as amended by Directive 87/101 /
partial, use of that investment property for the business             EEC, and to the choice made by the European legislature,
requirements.                                                         as expressed in the recitals in the preamble to Directive
                                                                      87/ 101 /EEC: regeneration is generally the most rational
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              way of re-using waste oils in view of the energy savings
                                                                      which can be achieved, and priority should therefore be
                                                                      given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration ( see
                                                                      the second recital in the preamble to Directive 87/101 /
                                                                      EEC ). Although the prohibition of the mixing of waste
                                                                      oils laid down by paragraphs 2 ( 1 ) and 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of
Action brought on 10 March 1997 by the Commission of                  the Altolverordnung prevents high-grade waste oils from
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                 being extracted by the regenerating industry, and thus
                             of Germany                               represents a condition of regeneration, it does not
                          ( Case C-102/97)                            establish any priority in favour of regeneration.
                             97/C 142/21 )
                                                                      ( 1 ) Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the
                                                                            disposal of waste oils ( OJ No L 194, 1975, p. 31 ).
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                 ( 2 ) Council   Directive       87/ 101 /EEC of 22  December     1986
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         amending Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils
Communities on 10 March 1997 by the Commission of                           ( OJ No L 42 , 12 . 2 . 1987, p. 43 ).
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
Hausen, Legal Adviser in the Commission, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amt der
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Tiroler Regierung (Landesvergabeamt) by order of that
                                                                      body of 7 November 1996 in the review proceedings
— declare that, by failing to give priority to the material,          brought by Josef Kollensperger GmbH & Co KG and
     rather than the thermal, processing of waste oils,                           Atzwanger AG against Gemeindeverband
     notwithstanding that such processing is not precluded                                 Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz
     by any economic, technical or organizational                                                   ( Case C-103/97 )
    constraints, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 ( 1 ) of                                        ( 97/C 142/22 )
     Council Directive 75/439/EEC H as amended by
    Directive 87/ 101 /EEC ( 2 ),                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Amt der Tiroler
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                    Landesregierung, Landesvergabeamt ( Office of the
    costs .                                                           Regional Government for the Tyrol — Regional Public


title: Case C-317/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 July 2007 — Lahti Energia Oy

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 July 2007 — Lahti Energia Oy
   (Case C-317/07)
   (2007/C 211/48)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lahti Energia Oy

      Other parties: Lahden ympäristölautakunta, Hämeen ympäristökeskus, Salpausselän luonnonystävät ry
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/76/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the directive does not apply to the incineration of gaseous waste?

               2.

               Is a gas plant where gas is generated from waste by means of pyrolysis to be regarded as an incineration plant within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/76/EC even if it has no incineration line?

               3.

               Is combustion in the boiler of the power plant of producer gas which is generated in the gas plant and purified after the gasification process to be regarded as an operation within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/76/EC? Does it have any bearing that the purified producer gas replaces the use of fossil fuels and that the emissions per unit of energy generated by the power plant would be lower when using purified producer gas generated from waste than when using other fuels? Is it of any relevance to the interpretation of the scope of Directive 2000/76/EC, first, whether the gas plant and the power plant form one plant having regard to the technical production aspects and the distance between them or, second, whether the purified producer gas generated at the gas plant is portable and may be used elsewhere, for example for energy production, as a fuel or for another purpose?

               4.

               Under what conditions may the purified producer gas generated at the gas plant be regarded as a product, so that the regulations on waste no longer apply to it?

      (1)  Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-89/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC)

text:
C 275/22                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                               (First Chamber)
                        of 2 October 2003                                                             of 2 October 2003
in Case C-348/02: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-89/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                         ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
              to implement Directive 1999/13/EC)                                             to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC)
                          (2003/C 275/38)                                                              (2003/C 275/39)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-348/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                In Case C-89/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a               (Agents: L. Ström and B. Stromsky) v Grand Duchy of
declaration that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and           Luxembourg (Agents: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                   ation that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations
Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                    Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonis-
organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999            ation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market
L 85, p. 1, and corrigendum, OJ 1999 L 188, p. 54) the Italian               and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993 L 121,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15               p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
of that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                   obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas                  composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2003,                 Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
in which it:                                                                 on 2 October 2003, in which it:
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        1.   Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
     Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation                      Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation
     of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                 of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and
     organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the                supervision of explosives for civil uses, the Grand Duchy of
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                  Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     Article 15 of that directive;                                                directive;
2.   Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           2.   Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                                  (1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-132/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/28

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament
   (Case T-132/06)
   (2006/C 165/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (Saint Pierre-d'Irube, France) (represented by: D. Rouget, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Secretary-General of 22 March 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 22 December 2005, in an action brought by the applicant, a former Member of the European Parliament, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities gave a judgment (Case T-146/04 Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament
       (1)) in which it annulled, on the ground of procedural irregularity, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances in so far as it provided that the sum owed by the applicant would be recovered by offsetting. The remainder of the application was dismissed. Following that judgment, the Secretary-General of the Parliament adopted a new decision on 22 March 2006 for recovery of the sums paid to the applicant by offsetting. That is the contested decision.
   In support of his action for annulment, the applicant submits first an argument relating to infringement of res judicata in so far as the procedure for adopting the contested decision is not, in his opinion, in accordance with the Court of First Instance's judgment of 22 December 2005. The second argument relates to alleged infringement of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in particular Article 27(3) and (4) thereof. Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is force majeure in that it is impossible for him to gain access to his accounts and the authorities of one of the Member States refuse to return to him a sum attached during other proceedings. The applicant also submits infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the consultation procedures were not followed correctly in taking the contested decision. The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principles of objectivity, impartiality, equality and non-discrimination. In addition, he advances arguments relating to infringement of the obligation to state reasons and failure to comply with the rules relating to the notification of decisions by institutions in breach of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. Lastly, in support of his action, the applicant submits an argument relating to misuse of powers and errors of appreciation of the facts.

      (1)  Not yet published in the ECR


title: Case T-385/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/33

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission
   (Case T-385/06)
   (2007/C 20/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands), Aquatis France (La Chapelle St. Mesmin, France), and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1, Article 2 a), Article 3;

               —

               annul Article 2 b)(2) in as far as Aquatis and Simplex are concerned;

               —

               or, in the alternative, reduce significantly the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order, in both cases, that the costs be paid by the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.
   In support of their application, the applicants invoke five pleas in law in order to demonstrate that the Commission's decision is based on manifest errors of appreciation and violations of Article 81 EC and general principles of proper administration.
   Firstly, the applicants submit that Alberts did not exercise decisive influence over the commercial behaviour of its portfolio companies Aquatis and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings and that Alberts has rebutted the presumption of decisive influence. The applicant Alberts should therefore not be held liable for Aquatis and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings alleged infringements.
   Secondly, the applicants contend that a) some of the documents and statements held against the applicants fall outside the litigious period in that they relate to events after 1 April 2004, and b) other elements cannot be held against the applicants because they were not part of the Statement of Objections addressed to the applicants. Even so, the applicants claim that these documents and statements do not prove, individually or cumulatively, an infringement of Article 81 EC on their side.
   Thirdly, the applicants submit that the elements relied upon by the Commission do not establish to the requisite legal standard that the general cartel continued after the inspections in April 2001. Nor does the contested decision, according to the applicants, contain any justification for linking the applicant's market conduct to such an alleged scheme.
   Fourthly, the applicants allege that the fine should be reduced as the Commission misapplied the fining guidelines and made errors in the calculation of the fine by an illegal setting of the starting amount as a) the alleged infringement cannot be qualified as ‘very serious’, b) the actual impact of the infringement has not been properly taken into account, and c) the size of the relevant geographic market has been wrongly identified as being the EEA.
   Moreover, the applicants contend that the Commission breached Article 253 EC as the contested decision does not provide any statement of reasons for imposing an additional amount of EUR 2.04 million on the applicants Aquatis France and Simplex Amaturen + Fittings.
   Fifthly, the applicants submit that the Commission violated Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the principle of equality of arms by shifting the burden of proof on the applicants by relying entirely on leniency statements and by refusing to use its fact-finding powers. Furthermore, the applicants contend that the Commission violated Article 11(2) of Regulation 773/2004 (2) by including in the contested decision objections which were not formulated against the applicants in the Statement of Objections.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione - Sezione Prima Civile by order of that court of 10 February 1997 in the case of Ecotrade Srl against AFS - Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (Case C-200/97)

text:
No C 228/6            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 7. 97
    legislation of a Member State remedies are available in           individual actions for enforcement from being taken
    respect of acts of the administration generally and               or pursued after the measure initiating the special
    different remedies are available in respect of decisions          administration procedure has been adopted ?
     concerning entry by nationals of that Member State,
     the obligation imposed on the Member State by that
    provision is satisfied if nationals of other Member
     States enjoy the same remedies as those available
     against acts of the administration generally in that             Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of
     Member State.                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                Case C-207/97 )
2 . On a proper construction of Article 9 of Directive 64/
     221 /EEC, the three cases mentioned in Article 9 (1 )                                        ( 97/C 228/ 12 )
     (namely 'where there is no right of appeal to a court
     of law, or where such appeal may be only in respect of           An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     the legal validity of the decision, or where the appeal          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     cannot have suspensory effect') apply equally as                 on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
     regards Article 9 (2), that is to say, where the decision        Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
     challenged is a refusal to issue a first residence permit        Principal Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a
     or a decision ordering expulsion adopted before the              national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
     issue of such a permit.                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
3 . A national of a Member State against whom an initial              Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     decision refusing entry into another Member State has
     been made on grounds of public order or public                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     security has a right of appeal under Article 8 of the            — declare that, by failing, in breach of Article 7 of
     directive and, if appropriate, a right to obtain the                   Directive 76/464/EEC ( x ), to adopt the programmes
      opinion of an independent competent authority in                      for the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
     accordance with Article 9 of the Directive, with                       objectives, at least as regards the 99 substances listed
      respect to a fresh decision taken by the administrative               in the annex to the application, or by failing to
     authorities on an application made by him after a                      communicate to the Commission summaries of the
      reasonable time has elapsed since the last decision                   programmes in question and the results of the
     prohibiting him from entering the country.                             application thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                            to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,
(■) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The Directive, which entered into force on the date of its
                                                                       notification, that is to say, 5 May 1976, pursuant to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema                Article 191 of the EEC Treaty ( which applied at that
di Cassazione — Sezione Prima Civile by order of that                  time ), does not expressly prescribe the period within
court of 10 February 1997 in the case of Ecotrade Sri                  which the obligations therein set out were to be
       against AFS — Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA               specifically implemented. However, as regards the national
                          ( Case C-200/97                              programmes for the reduction of pollution caused by the
                                                                       substances referred to in List II in the Annex to the
                            ( 97/C 228/ 11
                                                                       Directive, it is apparent from Articles 7 and 12 of the
                                                                       Directive that the Member States were obliged, in
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                principle, to draw up the programmes and to
 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di                 communicate summaries of them to the Commission by
 Cassazione — Sezione Prima Civile ( Supreme Court of                  5 August 1978 ; nevertheless, by letter dated 3 November
 Cassation, First Civil Division ) of 10 February 1997,                1976, the Commission proposed that the Member States
 which was received at the Court Registry on 26 May                    should act on the basis of the following dates :
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ecotrade Sri            15 September 1981 for the programmes for the reduction
 against AFS — Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA on the              of pollution caused by the substances referred to in List II
 following question :                                                  and 15 September 1986 for the implementation of those
                                                                       programmes .
 May a State measure adopted pursuant to Law No 95                     The Commission does not claim that the list of the 99
 which provides for the exemption of large enterprises in              priority substances annexed to the letter before action and
 difficulties from the usual insolvency proceedings and at             the reasoned opinion constitutes a legally binding
 the same time for the enterprise to continue trading be               measure; however, it considers that, so long as the Council
 regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 92 et seq. of           has not fixed emission limit values in respect of substances
 the Treaty, in view of the fact that Decree Law No 414 of             which ought to appear in List I, they must still be treated
 31 July 1981 ( converted into Law No 544/ 1981 ) precludes             as falling within List II .


title: Case C-475/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) (Hungary) lodged on 22 October 2012 — UPC DTH S.á.r.l. v A Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) (Hungary) lodged on 22 October 2012 — UPC DTH S.á.r.l. v A Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese
   (Case C-475/12)
   2013/C 26/38
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UPC DTH S.á.r.l.

      Defendant: A Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnökhelyettese

      Questions referred

               1.

               May Article 2(c) of the Framework Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, be interpreted as meaning that a service by which a service provider supplies, for consideration, conditional access to a package of programmes which contains radio and television broadcast services and is retransmitted by satellite is to be classified as an electronic communications service?

               2.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the free movement of services is applicable to the service described in the first question, in the case of a service supplied from Luxembourg to Hungary?

               3.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the service described in the first question, the country of destination, to which the service is sent, is entitled to limit the supply of that type of services by requiring that the [supplier of the] service has to be registered in that Member State and has to be established as a branch or independent legal entity, and allowing this type of services to be supplied only through the establishment of a branch or independent legal entity?

               4.

               May the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that administrative proceedings relating to the services described in the first question, regardless of the Member State in which the undertaking supplying that service operates or is registered, will be subject to the administrative authority of the Member State which has jurisdiction on the basis of the place in which the service is supplied?

               5.

               May Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (Framework Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the service described in the first question must be classified as an electronic communications service, or must such a service be classified as a conditional access service supplied using the conditional access system defined in Article 2(f) of the Framework Directive?

               6.

               On the basis of all the foregoing, may the relevant provisions be interpreted as meaning that the service provider described in the first question must be classified as a provider of electronic communications services pursuant to European Community law?

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).


title: Case T-282/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  23 February 2006  — Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission (Competition — Control of concentration of undertakings — Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Concept of concentration — Creation of a dominant position — Authorisation subject to compliance with certain commitments — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/10

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 — Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV v Commission
   (Case T-282/02) (1)

   (Competition - Control of concentration of undertakings - Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Concept of concentration - Creation of a dominant position - Authorisation subject to compliance with certain commitments - Principle of proportionality)
   (2006/C 96/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (Le Cruquius, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P. Kreijger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, A. Nijenhuis, K. Wiedner and W. Mölls, and subsequently A. Nijenhuis, E. Gippini Fournier and A. Whelan, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision 2003/756/EC of 26 June 2002, relating to a procedure pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, declaring a merger to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2650 — Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK)) (OJ 2003 L 282, p. 1, corrigendum published in OJ 2003 L 285, p. 52)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre): Goldsmiths (Jewellers) Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (VAT - Sixth Directive - Right to derogate provided for in Article 11 C (1) - No refund for barter transactions in the case of non-payment)

text:
16 . 8 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
                                                                           Convention of 27 September 1968 also have exclusive
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          jurisdiction where the action seeks in particular a
                         of 3 July 1997                                    declaration that the contract containing that clause is
                                                                           void.
in Case C-269/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Miinchen): Francesco Benincasa v.
                         Dentalkit Sri (')                            (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(Brussels    Convention — Concept of consumer —
               Agreement conferring jurisdiction)
                          ( 97/C 252/20 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
           published in the European Court Reports)                                              of 3 July 1997
                                                                      in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal
In Case C-269/95 : reference to the Court by the Oberlan
desgericht Miinchen ( Germany ) under the Protocol of                 Centre ): Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd v. Commissioners of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice                                 Customs and Excise ( 1 )
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial              ( VAT — Sixth Directive — Right to derogate provided for
                                                                      in Article 11 C (1 ) — No refund for barter transactions in
matters, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                                the case of non-payment)
pending before that court between Francesco Benincasa
and Dentalkit Sri on the interpretation of the first
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/21 )
paragraph of Article 13 , the first paragraph of Article 14
and the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
aforementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
 L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972 , p. 32 ), as amended by the
 Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 .
 1978 , p. 1 ; amended version of the Convention at p. 77 )
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      In Case C-330/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
 Kakouris ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm,              of the EC Treaty by the Value Added Tax Tribunal ,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; L.                 Manchester Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom ), for a
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
 judgment on 3 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     that court between Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd and
                                                                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
                                                                      Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
 1 . The first paragraph of Article 13 and the first                  G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. A. La Pergola,
     paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention of                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 1997, in which
     enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                 it has ruled :
     matters, as amended by the Corwention of 9 October
     1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, must be interpreted as meaning that
     a plaintiff who has concluded a contract with a view              On a proper construction, the derogation provided for in
     to pursuing a trade or profession, not at the present             the second subparagraph of Article 11 C (1 ) of the Sixth
     time but in the future, may not be regarded as a                  Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
     consumer.
                                                                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                       uniform basis of assessment — does not authorize a
                                                                       Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of
 2 . The courts of a Contracting State which have been                 VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the
     designated in a jurisdiction clause validly concluded             consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where              2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the consideration is expressed in money.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 9 July 1997
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                              in Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95
                                                                      (references for a preliminary ruling from the
                          of 3 July 1997                              Marknadsdomstol ): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v.
                                                                      De Agostini ( Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombuds
in     Case   C-60/96: Commission of the European                                mannen (KO ) v. TY-Shop i Sverige AB (')
              Communities v. French Republic (^
                                                                      ('Television without frontiers ' Directive — Television
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT           advertising broadcast from a Member State — Prohibition
— Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of tents,                    of misleading advertising — Prohibition of advertising
                   caravans or mobile homes)                                                 directed at children)
                          ( 97/C 252/22 )                                                        ( 97/C 252/23 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 : references
                                                                      to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
 In Case C-60/96 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
                                                                      Marknadsdomstol ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      proceedings pending before that court between Konsumen
Traversa ) v. French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins
 and Gautier Mignot) — Application for a declaration that,
                                                                      tombudsmannen ( KO ) and De Agostini ( Svenska ) Förlag
                                                                      AB ( C-34/95 ), and between Konsumentombudsmannen
 by introducing and maintaining in force an administrative
                                                                       ( KO ) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) —
 provision extending to the letting of certain forms of
                                                                      on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 59 of the EC
 movable property the exemption from VAT which,
                                                                      Treaty and of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
 pursuant to Article 13 B ( b ) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                       1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
                                                                       by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                       States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                       activities ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ) — the
 assessment, is restricted exclusively to the letting of
                                                                       Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                       G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
 fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive —
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                       Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.
 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges;             Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A.
 G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                       Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
                                                                       a judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
  1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
  1 . declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force                the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
      an administrative provision extending to the letting of               law, regulation or administrative action in Member
      certain forms of movable property the exemption from                  States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      VAT which, pursuant to Article 13 B (b) of the Sixth                  activities does not preclude a Member State from
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    taking, pursuant to general legislation on protection of
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States                        consumers against misleading advertising, measures
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   against an advertiser in relation to television
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is restricted                 advertising broadcast from another Member State,
      exclusively to the letting of immovable property, the                 provided that those measures do not prevent the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  retransmission, as such, in its territory of television
      under Article 2 of that Directive;                                    broadcasts coming from that other Member State.


title: Case T-401/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Market economy treatment — Individual treatment — Sampling — Support of the complaint by the Community industry — Definition of the product concerned — Equal treatment — Injury — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council
   (Case T-401/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Support of the complaint by the Community industry - Definition of the product concerned - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2010/C 113/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, China); Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd (Zhongshan, China); Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China); and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd (Kowloon, China) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-335/12: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/60

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-335/12) (1)

   (2017/C 144/81)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.