title: Case C-87/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany) lodged on 2 March 2009 — Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH
   (Case C-87/09)
   2009/C 90/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Schorndorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingrid Putz

      Defendant: Medianess Electronics GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Article 3(2), and the third subparagraph of Article 3(3), of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees to be interpreted as precluding a national statutory provision under which a seller, in the event that it has restored a consumer product to conformity with a contract of sale by way of replacement, does not have to pay the costs of the installation, in a particular unit, of the subsequently delivered product, in the case where the consumer has properly installed the contractually defective consumer product, if installation was not originally a contractual requirement?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Article 3(2), and the third subparagraph of Article 3(3), of Directive 1999/44/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a seller, in the event that it has restored a consumer product to conformity with a contract of sale by way of replacement, has to pay the costs of disconnection, from a particular unit, of the contractually defective consumer product, in the case where the consumer has properly installed the consumer product?

      (1)  Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12).


title: Case F-1/12: Action brought on 2nd January 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/29

         Action brought on 2nd January 2012 — ZZ v European Court of Auditors
   (Case F-1/12)
   2012/C 133/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceeding

   The annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors rejecting the request for compensation for the losses suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of 21 January 2011 rejecting his request for compensation for the losses suffered as a result of his retirement on invalidity pension;

               —

               if necessary, annul the Decision of 22 September 2011 rejecting his complaint dated 1st March 2011;

               —

               compensate the losses suffered;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case C-605/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 December 2014  — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 30 December 2014 — Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu v Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu
   (Case C-605/14)
   (2015/C 081/11)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Virpi Komu, Hanna Ruotsalainen, Ritva Komu

      Respondents: Pekka Komu, Jelena Komu

      Question referred

   Is Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that in a case in which some of the co-owners of immoveable property apply for the property to be sold for the purpose of the dissolution of the co-ownership relationship and for the trustee to carry out the sale is a question concerning rights in rem in immovable property?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-82/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2007 — Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciónes v Administración del Estado

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 15 February 2007 — Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciónes v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-82/07)
   (2007/C 82/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciónes

      Respondent: Administración del Estado
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 3(2) and Article 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), in conjunction with Recital 11, require Member States to allocate to separate authorities ‘regulatory functions ’on the one hand and ‘operational ’functions on the other, in relation to assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans?

               2.

               Where a Member State, on transposing Directive 2002/21/EC into its national law, has charged a specific authority with assigning national numbering resources and managing national numbering plans, may it at the same time reduce that authority's powers in that sphere, conferring them on other authorities or on its own State administration, with the result that management of those resources is in reality shared between various authorities?

      (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).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Protodikio Athinon by order of that court of 24 June 1997 in the Case of Dionisios Diamantis against (1) Greek State and (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigrotisis Epikhiriseon (OAE) (Case C-373/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
                        (First Chamber)                              Luxembourg at the office of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de
                                                                     Vianden.
                    of 20 November 1997
      in Case C-188/96 P: Commission of the European                 The applicant claims in particular that the Court should
                     Communities v. V (1)                            annul a note of the Commission (Directorate-General for
 (Officials Ð Removal from post Ð Statement of reasons)              Agriculture) and a Decision in which the Commission
                                                                     withdrew financial aid allocated under the integrated
                          (98/C 7/13)                                Mediterranean programme in respect of project
                                                                     88.20.IT.006.0 (supply of drinking water in Tuscany).
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 1 Octrober 1997 the Court referred the action
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     to the Court of First Instance of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Communities pursuant to Article 47 of the Statute of the
                                                                     Court.
In Case C-188/96 P Commission of the European
Communities represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of the
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-40/95,
ECR-SC II-461, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being V, a former                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Protodikio
official of the Commission of the European Communities,              Athinon by order of that court of 24 June 1997 in the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  Case of Dionisios Diamantis against (1) Greek State and
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigrotisis Epikhiriseon
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                                           (OAE)
of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange, the Court (First                                   (Case C-373/97)
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, acting for the President
of the First Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann                                               (98/C 7/15)
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997, in which it:                                                   European Communities by order of the Protodikio
                                                                     Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 24 June
1. sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance            1997, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 1997,
     of 28 March 1996 in Case T-40/95 V v. Commission                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dionisios Diamantis
     to the extent to which, on the one hand, it annulled            against (1) Greek State and (2) Organismos Ikonomikis
     for inadequacy of the statement of the reasons on               Anasigrotisis     Epikhiriseon     (Organization  for   the
     which it was based the Commission's decision of                 Reconstruction of Undertakings) on the following
     18 January 1995 removing Mr V from his post and,                questions:
     on the other hand, ordered the Commission to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the earlier
     interlocutory proceedings;                                      1. In the specific factual circumstances set out in the
                                                                         grounds of [the order for reference] does a question
2. refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for               arise as to the application, both in law and in
     it to adjudicate on the pleas raised by Mr V at first               substance, of Article 281 of the Civil Code, which
     instance;                                                           concerns abusive exercise of the plaintiff's rights, in
                                                                         relation to Articles 25 (1) and 29 (1) of the Second
                                                                         Directive 77/91/EEC (1)?
3. reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.                                           2. Should the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities find the above plea well-founded in law
                                                                         and in substance, how will that affect the validity of
                                                                         the ministerial decisions increasing and reducing the
                                                                         capital of the company in question, of which the
                                                                         plaintiff happens to be a shareholder, and, by
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Regione Toscana                    extension, are Articles 8 (8) and 10 (1) of Law
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    No 1386/1993 compatible with Community law, in
                                                                         view of the fact that, where Article 281 of the Civil
                       (Case C-180/97)
                                                                         Code does not come into play, it has been held in
                          (98/C 7/14)                                    accordance with the above that those provisions are
                                                                         contrary to the Second Directive?
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               (1) OJ L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 1.
the European Communities on 1 April 1997 by the
Regione Toscana, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia


title: Case T-202/11: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Aerooria Aigaiou Aeroporiki and Marfin Investment Group Symmetochon v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/29

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2013 — Aerooria Aigaiou Aeroporiki and Marfin Investment Group Symmetochon v Commission
   (Case T-202/11) (1)

   2013/C 336/63
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case C-607/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 December 2014 — Bookit, Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 29 December 2014 — Bookit, Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-607/14)
   (2015/C 081/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bookit, Ltd

      Defendants: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the exemption from VAT in Article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of VAT as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-2/95 Sparekassernes Datacenter (SDC) v Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C:1997:278; [1997] ECR I-3017), what are the relevant principles to be applied in determining whether or not a ‘debit and credit card handling service’ (such as the service that is supplied in this case) has ‘the effect of transferring funds and entails changes in the legal and financial situation’ within the meaning of paragraph 66 of that judgment.

               2.

               As a matter of principle, what factors distinguish: (a) a service which consists in the provision of financial information without which a payment would not be made but which do not fall within the exemption (such as in C-350/10 Nordea Pankki Suomi (ECLI:EU:C:2011:532; [2011] ECR I-7359), from (b) a data handling service which functionally has the effect of transferring funds and which the Court of Justice has identified as therefore being capable of falling within the exemption (such as in SDC at paragraph 66)?

               3.

               In particular, and in the context of debit and credit card handling services:

                           a.

                           Does the exemption apply to such services which result in a transfer of funds but which do not include the task of making a debit to one account and a corresponding credit to another account?

                           b.

                           Does entitlement to the exemption depend on whether the service provider itself obtains authorisation codes directly from the cardholder's bank, or alternatively obtains those codes via its merchant acquirer bank?

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/37

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers
   (2006/C 131/67)
   At its plenary meeting on 8 May 2006, the Court of First Instance decided, following the taking up of his duties by Mr Moavero Milanesi, to amend as follows the decision of the plenary meeting of 7 July 2005 on the assignment of Judges to chambers:
   For the period from 8 May 2006 to 30 September 2006, the following are assigned:

                  to the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

               H. Legal, President of the Chamber, P. Lindh, I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka, V. Vadapalas and M. Milanesi, Judges;

                  to the Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

               H. Legal, President of the Chamber

                           (a)

                           P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges

                           (b)

                           I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka and M. Milanesi, Judges


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 November 1996 in Case C-68/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Bananas - Common organization of the markets - Import rules - Cases of hardship - Assessment of validity - Interim measures)

text:
25 . 1 . 97             1 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 26/5
       postponed to another date at the will of the transferor                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       or transferee.                                                                          of 26 November 1996
                                                                        in Case C-68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(!) OJ No C 386, 31 . 12. 1994 .                                        the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): T. Port GmbH &c
( 2 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26.                                Co .    KG     v.    Bundesanstalt     fur  Landwirtschaft  und
                                                                                Ernahrung ( 1 )
                                                                        (Bananas — Common organization of the markets —
                                                                        Import rules — Cases of hardship — Assessment of
                                                                                validity — Interim measures)
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/08 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 14 November 1996                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA v.
          Commission of the European Communities 0 )                    In Case C-68/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                        Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hessischer
 (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position —                            Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court,
Definition of the product markets — Application of                      Hesse ), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
Article 86 of the Treaty to practices carried out by a                  proceedings pending before that court between T. Port
 dominant undertaking on a market distinct from the                     GmbH & Co . KG and Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft
 dominated market — Tied sales — Predatory prices —                      und Ernahrung, supported by Federal Republic of
                                    Fine)
                                                                         Germany — on the interpretation of Articles 16 and 30 of
                               ( 971C 26/07)                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
                                                                         1993 on the common organization of the market in
                                                                         bananas (2 ), on the validity of Article 19 of that
                                                                         Regulation and on the interpretation of the EC Treaty,
                  (Language of the case: English)                        with particular regard to a national court's power to order
                                                                         interim measures until rules dealing with cases of hardship
                                                                         are adopted — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 In Case C-333/94 P: Tetra Pak International SA, whose                   Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 seat is in Pully, Switzerland, represented by Michel                    Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 Waelbroeck and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels                ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
 Bar, and by Vivien Rose, Barrister, with an address for                 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,                 G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.
  8—10 rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the judgment                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
  of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber ) of                    Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
  6 October 1994 in Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak v. Commission                 26 November 1996, in which it has ruled :
  [1994] ECR 11-755, seeking to have that judgment set
  aside — the other party to the proceedings being: the                   1 . Article 16 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
  Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                       of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of
  Currall, assisted by Nicholas Forwood QC ) — the Court                      the market in bananas does not allow the Commission
  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the                    to lay down rules catering for cases of hardship arising
  First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                        from the fact that importers of third-country bananas
  Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet                     or non-traditional ACP bananas meet difficulties
  and P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                          threatening their existence when an exceptionally low
  Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                       quota was allocated to them on the basis of the
  for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November                      reference years to be taken into consideration pursuant
   1996 , in which it:                                                        to Article 19 (2) of the Regulation.
                                                                              Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 authorizes
   1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                  and, depending on the circumstances, requires the
                                                                               Commission to lay down rules catering for cases of
                                                                               hardship arising from the fact that importers of third-
   2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                  country bananas or non-traditional ACP bananas
                                                                               meet difficulties threatening their existence when an
                                                                               exceptionally low quota has been allocated to them on
   (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                          the basis of the reference years to be taken into
                                                                               consideration pursuant to Article 19 (2) of that
                                                                               Regulation, where those difficulties are inherent in the
                                                                               transition from the national arrangements existing
 ---pagebreak--- No C 26 /6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 .  . 97
       before the entry into force of the Regulation to the                   on the approximation of the laws of the Member
       common organization of the market and are not                           States relating to the labelling, presentation and
       caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders                    advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
       concerned.                                                             consumer (!), if he puts foodstuffs on the market in
                                                                              the Federal Republic of Germany which are labelled in
2 . The EC Treaty does not authorize national courts to                       Italian, French or English ?
       order provisional measures in proceedings for the
      grant of interim relief until such time as the                     2 . If not, does the trader satisfy the requirements of
       Commission has adopted an act with legal effect to                     Article 14 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC at least if
      deal, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation                       he places a supplementary sign in his shop at the
       (EEC) No 404/93 , with cases of hardship affecting                     location of the goods in question, containing the
      traders .
                                                                              prescribed particulars in German ?
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovratt
Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of                         by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of
7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle                                      Anders Sjoberg v. Public Prosecutor
                against Office National des Pensions                                               ( Case C-387/96)
                           ( Case C-366/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/11 )
                              ( 97/C 26/09 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Svea Hovratt
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                      ( Svea Court of Appeal ) of 22 November 1996, which was
Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 7 November 1996,                  received at the Court Registry on 27 November 1996, for
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1996, for                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Anders Sjoberg v.
a preliminary ruling in the case of Louisette Cordelle                   Public Prosecutor on the following questions:
against Office National des Pensions on the following
question:
                                                                         1 . Is the derogation contained in Article 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
Having regard to the benefits paid in accordance with                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December
French law by the Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie                        1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
Nord Picardie and to the retirement pension payable                           relating to road transport ( ! ) applicable to the services
under Belgian law, is the rule preventing the overlapping                     run by Stockholm Lan Council using SL Buss AB ?
of benefits laid down by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 applicable in the light of the                          2 . According to Article 14 ( 5 ), drivers on services
Community rules ?                                                             mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) must carry an extract
                                                                              from the duty roster and a copy of the service
                                                                              timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty
                                                                              roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in
                                                                              question ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12. 1985 , p. 1 .
Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the
administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef
                                 Goerres
                           ( Case C-385 /96 )
                              ( 97/C 26/ 10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   tungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht                      in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal
Aachen ( Aachen Local Court) of 6 November 1996 ,                                               Republic of Germany
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November                                            ( Case C-389/96 )
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative                                                  ( 97/C 26/ 12 )
penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres on the
following questions:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
1.    Does a trader act in accordance with Article 14 of                 the European Communities by order of the Bundes
      Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978                   verwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of


title: Case C-249/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 49 EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21 and 22 — Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a Member State other than the one where he carries out taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay VAT)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-249/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 49 EC - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 21 and 22 - Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a Member State other than the one where he carries out taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay VAT)
   (2006/C 190/09)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Koskinen, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 49 EC and Articles 21 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation imposing the obligation, for a taxable person who is not established in a country, but who carries out taxable transactions there, to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay tax
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out taxable transactions there and are established in another Member State or in a non-member State with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authorities as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.


title: Case C-237/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
   (Case C-237/16)
   (2016/C 260/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Respondent: Diputacíon General de Aragón

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (ii) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation; and motor fuel, irrespective of their total public sales area?

               2.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the fact that the IDMGAV is not actually levied on retail establishments with a public sales area not exceeding 500 m2 or on those exceeding that threshold provided that the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, or on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation, and motor fuel?


title: Case T-280/03: Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 251/16              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
                                                                        as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).
The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
                                                                        (1) OJ L 143, p. 5.
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.
The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and                Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and                        against the Council of the European Union
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard                                     (Case T-281/03)
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.                                                                                (2003/C 251/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &
   Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-280/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far
                                                                              as it does not:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.                    1.    delete, from the definitive report for the period from
                                                                                1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
                                                                                included under general observations: ‘She is encour-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        aged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
                                                                                of work in the Pool which she has performed
                                                                                efficiently in the past’;
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
      2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
      Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
      (scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic              2.    include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
      of China (1);                                                                mobility and versatility’;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the            —     order the Council to pay the costs.
      costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia ori-              The applicant takes issue with the appointing authority's
ginating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a            refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
partial interim review.                                                 report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.


title: Case T-264/99: Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Demarol B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 34/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.2.2000
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Demarol B.V.                        The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — Annul the decision of the European Parliament.
                        (Case T-264/99)
                         (2000/C 34/49)                                  Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
                                                                         European Parliament to entrust the running of the newspaper
                                                                         kiosks in the Bertha von Suttnerm and Paul-Henri Spaak
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                buildings and in the passageway in the Altero Spinelli building
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               to a tenderer other than the applicant and, consequently, not
European Communities on 28 October 1999 by Demarol B.V.,                 to accept the tender submitted by the applicant.
of Harderwijk (Netherlands), represented by C.J.M. van Zeijl,
of the Harderwijk Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the Registry of the Court of First Instance, Kirchberg.         In the contested decision, the Parliament took the view that:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — the tender submitted by the applicant did not meet the
                                                                              criteria concerning financial capacity, having regard to the
(a) annul the Commission’s decision of 20 January 1999                        balance-sheets presented (a loss was carried forward and a
    demanding further information from the Netherlands                        substantial trading debt was incurred in the period 1996
    authorities, and the Commission’s decision of 20 July                     to 1998);
    1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid granted
    by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region
    bordering Germany;                                                   — the tender did not include Greek and Portuguese news-
                                                                              papers;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         — the tender submitted by the successful tenderer was more
                                                                              detailed and more attractive, because of the personalised
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               services and the opening times offered.
This pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in              It is to be borne in mind that the general contract conditions,
Case T-210/99.                                                           the financial regulation and Council Directive 92/50 are
                                                                         applicable to this case mutatis mutandis.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement:
                                                                         — of the financial regulation of 21 December 1977, appli-
                                                                              cable to the general budget of the European Communities,
                                                                              in particular Articles 56, 58(3) and 139 thereof;
Action brought on 2 November 1999 by Librairie de                        — of Council Directive 92/50 of 19 June 1992 relating to the
                 Rome v European Parliament                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                                                                              contracts, in particular Articles 31 and 34 thereof;
                        (Case T-266/99)
                                                                         — of Articles 4(b) and 6 of the general tendering conditions,
                                                                              and
                         (2000/C 34/50)
                                                                         — of general legal principles, more particularly the principle
                   (Language of the case: French)                             of sound administration.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             The applicant also alleges a manifest error of appraisal and
the Court of First Instance on 2 November 1999 by Librairie              breach of the obligation to state reasons.
de Rome, a company whose registered office is in Brussels,
represented by Louis Dehin and Christine Brüls, of the Liège
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Charles Duro, 3 Rue de la Chapelle.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-174/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Planned aid — Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission's final decision — Scope of the prohibition if the aid consists of an exemption from a tax — Persons who may rely on an infringement)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-174/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (State aid - Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Planned aid - Prohibition on the implementation of planned measures before the Commission's final decision - Scope of the prohibition if the aid consists of an exemption from a tax - Persons who may rely on an infringement)
   (2005/C 57/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-174/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 8 March 2002, received at the Court on 13 May 2002, in the proceedings between Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant and Staatssecretaris van Financiën – the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The last sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by a person liable to a tax forming an integral part of an aid measure levied in breach of the prohibition on implementation referred to in that provision, whether or not the person is affected by the distortion of competition resulting from that aid measure.

               2.

               The last sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition in it applies to a tax only if the revenue from it is hypothecated to the aid measure at issue. The fact that the aid is granted in the form of a tax exemption or that the loss of revenue due to that exemption is, for the purposes of the budget estimates of the Member State in question, offset by an increase in the tax are not in themselves sufficient to amount to such hypothecation.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.


title: Case C-145/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (European Parliament — Elections — Right to vote — Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-145/04) (1)

   (European Parliament - Elections - Right to vote - Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union)
   (2006/C 281/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: R. Caudwell, P. Goldsmith, D. Wyatt and D. Anderson QC, Agents, and M. Chamberlain, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Ladenburger, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 189 EC, 190 EC, 17 EC and 19 EC and of the 1976 Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 — Right of Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar to vote in European elections
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-42/08: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — M. Ilhan v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Articles 49 EC to 55 EC — Motor vehicles — Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/18

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — M. Ilhan v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-42/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom to provide services - Articles 49 EC to 55 EC - Motor vehicles - Use in one Member State of a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle in the first Member State)
   (2008/C 209/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M. Ilhan

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC — National rules providing for imposition of a registration tax on first use of a vehicle on the national road network irrespective of the duration of use of that network — Liability to tax of a person established in that Member State who has leased a vehicle which is registered in another Member State and which is intended for use essentially in the first Member State for professional and private purposes for a period of three years
   Operative part of the order
   Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude the application of national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which a person, residing or established in a Member State, who uses — primarily in that Member State — a motor vehicle registered and leased in another Member State, must, on first use of that vehicle on the road network of the first Member State, pay a tax which is calculated without taking into account the duration of the leasing agreement for that vehicle or the length of time that vehicle will be used on that road network.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-262/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Inward processing procedure — System of suspension — Incurrence of a customs debt — Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
   (Case C-262/10) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Inward processing procedure - System of suspension - Incurrence of a customs debt - Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period)
   2012/C 355/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of Article 859(9) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 (OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1) — Failure to fulfil the obligation to supply, within the prescribed time-limit, the bill of discharge in an inward processing procedure — Whether permissible for a customs debt to be incurred in respect of the entire quantity of the goods covered by the inward processing procedure as punishment for that failure

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-56/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 4 February 2013 — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt. v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal
   (Case C-56/13)
   2013/C 147/07
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt.

      Defendant: Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Was the decision of the Hungarian administrative authorities, within the framework of interim protection measures against highly pathogenic avian influenza, to order a protection zone and, within that framework, to ban inter alia the transportation of poultry consistent with Union law — Council Directive 92/40/EEC (1) or 2005/94/EC, (2) or Commission Decision 2006/105/EC?
               Was the decision by the Hungarian administrative authorities, within the framework of interim protection measures against highly pathogenic avian influenza, to amend some of the rules on protection zones and, within that framework, to ban inter alia the moving of poultry within the protection zone, together with the measure taken by those authorities in the form of an official opinion to the applicant (a decision against which there was no right of appeal), by which the authorities refused permission for the transport (introduction) of turkeys to a site within the protection zone and located precisely at the centre of infection, consistent with Union law — Council Directive 92/40/EEC or 2005/94/EC, or Commission Decision 2006/115/EC?

               2.

               Was the aim of Council Directive 92/40/EEC or 2005/94/EC, as sources of Union law, to create a system of regulation by Union law of compensation for any damage caused to individuals by interim protection measures taken against highly pathogenic avian influenza within the Union? Did the legal basis in Union law indicated in Council Directive 92/40/EEC or 2005/94/EC, or Commission Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC provide appropriate powers to create a system of regulation by Union law of compensation for damage caused to individuals by interim protection measures taken in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza?

               3.

               If the response to the second question is in the affirmative, is it lawful and consistent with Union law to restrict compensation claims resulting from interim national measures taken in the course of the implementation of the legislation listed? May a national legal provision that restricts State compensation to the actual damage and costs, and excludes the opportunity to recover loss of earnings, be regarded as a necessary and proportionate restriction in connection with a claim for compensation for damage caused to individuals?

               4.

               If the response to the second question is in the negative, may the applicant base a claim for compensation to recover loss of earnings directly on a violation of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 16, concerning freedom to conduct a business, Article 17, concerning the right to property, and Article 47, concerning the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial), if the interim measures taken by a Member State in the course of the implementation of Union law for the purpose of protection against highly pathogenic avian influenza caused damage to the applicant but the legal rules of the Member State relating to compensation for the damage caused restrict the submission of such claims and exclude the opportunity to submit a claim for loss of earnings?

               5.

               If a full claim for damages can be enforced on the basis of any Union law, may such claims be enforced exclusively against the State or, on a wide construction of the concept of the State, may such a claim also be enforced against the public administrative authority, in proceedings for compensation for damage caused in the exercise of public authority? If the claim can also be enforced against administrative bodies, may the law of the Member State require that additional conditions be complied with in order for a right to compensation to arise?

               6.

               If Union law does not allow an applicant to obtain full compensation, directly on the basis of Union law, for the damage sustained by him, does the requirement of equality of procedure mean that the same rules govern the processing of claims that may be decided on the basis of Union law and similar claims that may be decided on the basis of Hungarian law?

               7.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case — given that the legislative and administrative measures taken by Member States for the purposes of protection against highly pathogenic avian influenza occurring in wild birds within the Union, of necessity, affect the operation of the internal market — is it possible to request an amicus curiæ opinion from the European Commission in legal proceedings relating to measures implementing Union law, particularly in cases where it becomes clear that the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against the Member State in connection with legal matters relevant to the legal dispute in question?

               8.

               If it is possible to request either an amicus curiæ opinion or to make a simple request for information from the European Commission, is the European Commission obliged to supply an amicus curiæ opinion or the information sought with regard to the data, documents and statements arising during the infringement proceedings and the practices engaged in by the European Commission within this area, particularly if the information in question is not in the public domain and originated during the period prior to the infringement proceedings being brought before the Court of Justice? May such information be used in public in an individual legal dispute before a court of the Member State?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (OJ 1992 L 167, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (OJ 2006 L 10, p. 16).


title: Case T-348/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council (Dumping — Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine — Amendment of the definition of the product concerned — Application of existing measures to new product types)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council
   (Case T-348/05) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine - Amendment of the definition of the product concerned - Application of existing measures to new product types)
   (2008/C 272/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo-Chepetsk, Russia) (represented: initially by B. Servais and Y. Melin, and subsequently by B. Servais, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96;

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-53/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Italian Republic v Commission (State aid — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of advantage — Principle of audi alteram partem)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-53/08) (1)

   (State aid - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of advantage - Principle of audi alteram partem)
   2010/C 221/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-31/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/51

         Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-31/17)
   (2017/C 104/71)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), excluding from financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from financing the amount of EUR 660 202,73 relating to the expenditure declared by the Portugal under the technical assistance heading of the POSEI programme for the Azores in the financial years 2012 and 2013;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 of 30 January 2006 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union (OJ 2006 L 42, p. 1).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds and an infringement of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 170, p. 90).


title: Case T-311/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2006 — Nürburgring v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/33/CE — Advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products — Ban on sponsorship of events or activities concerning more than one Member State — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2006 — Nürburgring v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-311/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/33/CE - Advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products - Ban on sponsorship of events or activities concerning more than one Member State - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 224/91)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg/Eifel, Germany) (represented by : H. J. Rabe, lawyer, assisted by M. Dauses, Professor)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by : E.Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by E. Karlsson and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Hockenheim-Ring GmbH (Hockenheim, Germany) and Exploitatie Circuit Park Zandvoort BV (Zandvoort, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Dauses, Professor)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and E. Bygglin, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, Agents) and Kingdom of Spain (Represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Directive 2003/33/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16), in particular Article 5(1) thereof.
   Operative part of the order

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               (2)

               The applicant shall bear its own costs, as well as those of the Parliament and the Council.

               (3)

               The Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the Commission, as well as Hockenheim-Ring GmbH and Exploitatie Circuit Park Zandvoort BV, shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-3/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Simonds Farsons Cisk v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for registration of a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element  KINJI by SPA  — Earlier Community word mark KINNIE — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Simonds Farsons Cisk v OHIM
   (Case T-3/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for registration of a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘KINJI by SPA’ - Earlier Community word mark KINNIE - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2006/C 22/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Simonds Farsons Cisk plc (Mrieħel, Malta) (represented by: M. Bagnall, I. Wood, Solicitor, and R. Hacon, Barrister)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   Application for
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2003 (Case R 996/2002-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Simonds Farsons Cisk plc and Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-304/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/11

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-304/09)
   2009/C 256/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and E. Righini, agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (notified on 17 March 2005 under document No C(2005) 591) (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the EC Treaty.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit within which Italian Republic was required to withdraw the aid scheme and recover the unlawfully paid aid expired two months after the date of notification of the decision in question. More than four years later, the Italian authorities have recovered only approximately 25 % of the aid.


title: Case C-570/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio tis Kipriakis Dimokratias (Cyprus)) — Simvoulio Apokhetefseon Lefkosias v Anatheoritiki Arkhi Prosforon (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Article 2(8) — Body responsible for review procedures that is not judicial in character — Annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to accept a tender — Possibility for the contracting authority to appeal against that annulment before a judicial body)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio tis Kipriakis Dimokratias (Cyprus)) — Simvoulio Apokhetefseon Lefkosias v Anatheoritiki Arkhi Prosforon
   (Case C-570/08) (1)

   (Public contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Article 2(8) - Body responsible for review procedures that is not judicial in character - Annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to accept a tender - Possibility for the contracting authority to appeal against that annulment before a judicial body)
   2010/C 346/12
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Anotato Dikastirio tis Kipriakis Dimokratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Simvoulio Apokhetefseon Lefkosias

      Defendant: Anatheoritiki Arkhi Prosforon

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) — Interpretation of Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Right of a contracting authority to judicial review of decisions of a responsible body, within the meaning of that provision, which is not judicial in character

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to provide, also for contracting authorities, a right to seek judicial review of the decisions of non-judicial bodies responsible for review procedures concerning the award of public contracts. However, that provision does not prevent the Member States from providing, in their legal systems, such a review procedure in favour of contracting authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2005 in Case C-279/03: Commission of the European Communities v Implants (International) Ltd (Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of an advance payment — Default interest — Default proceedings)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 24 February 2005
   in Case C-279/03: Commission of the European Communities v Implants (International) Ltd (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Reimbursement of an advance payment - Default interest - Default proceedings)
   (2005/C 106/11)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-279/03, an action under Article 238 EC brought on 26 June 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito) v Implants (International) Ltd, established in Cleveland (United Kingdom) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Orders Implants (International) Ltd to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum due of EUR 284 000, together with default interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 4,8 % per annum from 31 August 2002 until 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           at the rate of 6,8 % per annum from 1 January 2003 until the sums payable have been reimbursed in full;

               2.

               Orders Implants (International) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-213/95)

text:
No C 31 /20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3 . 2 . 96
The choice of a 5 % profit margin is difficult to understand          Commission has hitherto failed to adopt a final decision
in that in a regional procedure limited to the United                 regarding their application for a negative clearance or an
Kingdom concerning the same product, which led the                    exemption for the rules for the certification of crane hire
Commission to accept quantitative undertakings from May               businesses which they have notified, and which include a
1994 , it accepted a profit margin of 10% .                           prohibition on the hiring of non-certificated cranes . In
                                                                      interlocutory proceedings the national court has ordered
The applicant finally considers that a 15 % profit margin is          that the prohibition of hiring such cranes is not to be applied
the vital minimum which would enable the Community                    until the Commission has adopted a final decision. The
industry, on the one hand, to finance necessary sustaining            applicants claim that as a result of the prohibition by the
investment and, on the other hand, to reinvest for updating           court there is a danger that the national Raad voor de
and replacing existing capacities .                                   Certificatie will withdraw its recognition of the applicants,
                                                                      which threatens their existence and impairs their good
                                                                      reputation .
                                                                      The applicants consider that the Commission's failure is
                                                                      unlawful because it infringes Article 6 of the European
                                                                      Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, in
Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Stichting                   particular the requirement for a fair timelimit to
Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van                proceedings, and because it infringes general principles of
Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission                  law, namely the principle of legal certainty, the principle of
                 of the European Communities                          the protection of legitimate expectations and the applicants'
                        ( Case T-2 13/95 )                            right to a hearing.
                           ( 96/C 31 /47
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                             Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-97/93
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  and others (M
Instance of the European Communities on 27 November                                                   96/C 31 /48
 1995 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and
the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                                   (Language of the case: German)
whose registered offices are both at Culemborg
 ( Netherlands ), represented by M. van Empel, of the                 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
Amsterdam Bar, and T. Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with             Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .                                            from the register of Cases T-142/93 : Heinz Giinther Herken
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           European Communities, and T-149/93 : Hans Roper v.
                                                                       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
 1 . hold the European Community liable for the damage                European Communities.
      which the applicants are suffering and will suffer as a
      result of the unlawful conduct of the Commission cited           ( ] ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990, OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 and OJ
                                                                             No C 44 , 19 . 2 . 1992 .
      in the application;
 2 . order the European Community to pay compensation
      for that damage and to establish the extent of the
      damage in consultation with the applicants, and if the
      parties are not able to reach a mutual agreement                         Removal from the register of Case T-224/94 ( J )
      regarding the determination of the extent of the damage                                          96/C 31 /49
      to declare that the Court will establish its extent, if
      necessary after appointing an expert in order to quantify                         (Language of the case: English)
      exactly what damage has been suffered;
                                                                       By order of 18 December 1995 the President of the Fifth
  3 . order the European Community to pay the costs of these           Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
      proceedings .                                                    Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case T-224/94 : Ferchimex N.V. v.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities .
  The applicants claim that despite an express call for it to act,
  made pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, the                    (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-439/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — LS Cable & System v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/45

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — LS Cable & System v Commission
   (Case T-439/14)
   2014/C 282/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LS Cable & System Ltd (Anyang, Republic of Korea) (represented by: S. Kinsella and S. Spinks, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Articles 1(11) and 2(t) of the Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in case AT.39610 — Power Cables (the ‘Decision’) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

               —

               In the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2(t) of the Decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, the Decision fails to adduce evidence capable of demonstrating to the requisite legal standard that the applicant participated in the single continuous infringement, as the Decision relies on incorrect reasoning and adduces insufficient evidence of the applicant’s participation in the infringement in violation of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 2 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of the presumption of innocence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision’s application of point 18 of the Fining Guidelines violates the Fining Guidelines and infringes the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and the protection of legitimate expectations because:

                           —

                           it fails to comply with the Commission’s Fining Guidelines without objective justification, by treating UG and SM power cables separately for the purpose of allocating sales in the EEA to the applicant and by failing to adequately reflect the relative weight of the applicant in the infringement;

                           —

                           it produces a discriminatory advantage on producers (including the applicant) that only produced UG power cables; and

                           —

                           it leads to a disproportionately large allocation of sales in the EEA to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches Article 23 of Regulation (EC) 1/2003, point 20 of the Fining Guidelines and the principle of proportionality by failing properly to have regard to the gravity of the infringement in fixing the applicant’s amount of the fine by failing to take account of:

                           —

                           the fact that the applicant only produced UG power cables;

                           —

                           the applicant’s lack of knowledge about the SM part and certain key elements of the UG part of the infringement; and

                           —

                           the applicant’s competitive conduct in the EEA and in the export territories and its disruption of the UG part of the cartel.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the principles of proportionality and equal treatment in failing to grant the applicant a mitigating circumstance reduction higher than 11 %.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the