title: Case C-265/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Benelux Court of Justice by judgment of 26 June 2000 in the case of Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau

text:
26.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/25
—     The Commission confirms the finding made in the                  received at the Court Registry on 29 June 2000, for a
      reasoned opinion, to the effect that the subterranean            preliminary ruling in the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-
      waters of the department of the Oise should have been            GmbH against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      identified as affected by pollution within the meaning of        question:
      Article 3(1) of the directive.
                                                                       In the case of operations to which Article 4(3) of Directive
                                                                       69/335/EEC (1) refers, are fees for the recording and certifi-
(1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                       cation of documents by notaries in the civil service of the Land
(2) [1999] ECR I-2603.
                                                                       Baden-Württemberg in the Higher Regional Court District of
                                                                       Karlsruhe caught by the prohibition under Article 10 of that
                                                                       directive so that the fees may be charged only in accordance
                                                                       with the actual costs incurred by the notaries for the service in
                                                                       question?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
München by order of that court of 19 April 2000 in
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels-Produktions
GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle
                             München
                         (Case C-259/00)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Benelux Court
                                                                       of Justice by judgment of 26 June 2000 in the case of
                                                                            Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
                         (2000/C 247/37)
                                                                                (Case C-265/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münch-                                        (2000/C 247/39)
en (Financial Court, Munich) of 19 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- Produktions GmbH             European Communities by judgment of 26 June 2000 by the
v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle München, on                Benelux Court of Justice, which was received at the Court
the following question:                                                Registry on 29 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Benelux
Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I to              Trade Marks Office) on the following questions:
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) (OJ L 312) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                      A.   Must Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council Directive
No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and               89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning                   laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be
that immunoglobulin concentrates from dried, defatted and                   construed as meaning that, in determining whether a sign
decaseinated colostrum, standardised by means of lactose, are               consisting of a new word made up of a number of
to be classified as pharmaceutical products in chapter 30?                  component parts has a sufficiently distinctive character
                                                                            to be capable of serving as a mark for the goods in
                                                                            question, one has to proceed on the assumption that this
(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.                                           question is in principle to be answered in the affirmative
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                             even if each of those component parts is in itself devoid
                                                                            of any distinctive character for those goods, and that the
                                                                            position will be different only if there are attendant
                                                                            circumstances, for instance if the new word constitutes
                                                                            an indication, which is obvious and directly comprehen-
                                                                            sible for any person, of a commercially essential combi-
                                                                            nation of properties which cannot be indicated otherwise
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                       than through use of the new word?
Mülheim/Baden by order of that court of 20 June 2000 in
the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH against Land                  B.   If Question A is to be answered in the negative: must it
                      Baden-Württemberg                                     then be assumed that a sign consisting of a new word
                                                                            which is made up of different component parts, each of
                                                                            which is in itself devoid of any distinctive character for
                         (Case C-264/00)
                                                                            the goods in question within the meaning of Article 3(1)
                                                                            of the Directive, is itself also devoid of any distinctive
                         (2000/C 247/38)                                    character, and that the situation may be different only if
                                                                            there are attendant circumstances which result in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      combination of the component parts being greater than
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Müllheim/                  the sum of those parts, for instance where the new word
Baden (Local Court, Müllheim/Baden) of 20 June 2000,                        indicates a certain creativity?
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.8.2000
C.    Does it make any difference for the answer to Question B                 chemical fertilisers. The provisions invoked by the Luxem-
      whether synonyms exist for each of the component parts                   bourg authorities (relating respectively to the fertiliser
      of the sign, with the result that competitors of the                     trade and to water management and protection) are of
      applicant for registration who wish to make it clear to the              too general a nature and do not provide farmers with
      public that their products too contain the combination of                sufficiently precise information as to the way in which
      qualities indicated by the new word can reasonably also                  they are to operate with regard to the land application of
      do so by using those synonyms?                                           chemical fertilisers with a view to avoiding pollution of
                                                                               surface waters.
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
                                                                          —    (As regards the land application of organic fertilisers in
                                                                               such a way as to take account of sloping ground)
                                                                               Article 5 of the Grand-Ducal regulation of 20 September
                                                                               1994, to which the Luxembourg authorities refer, does
                                                                               not take account of sloping ground independently of
                                                                               climatic conditions, contrary to the obligation laid down
                                                                               in Article 5(4) in conjunction with point 2 in part A
Action brought on 30 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                               of Annex II and point 3(a) in Annex III to Directive
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                               91/676/EEC.
                            Luxembourg
                          (Case C-266/00)                                 —    (As regards the land application of organic fertilisers in
                                                                               such a way as to take account of climatic conditions)
                          (2000/C 247/40)
                                                                               Inasmuch as, given the climatic situation in the Benelux
                                                                               countries, it is established that measures are necessary to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                            limit land application in the event of snow and that there
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   exists no objective reason to believe that the feared
ties on 30 June 2000 by the Commission of the European                         pollution risks in the event of land application on snow-
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,                covered ground are lower when the snow conditions last
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                     for less than 24 hours, the provisions of Article 5, point
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 A(1)(a), fourth indent, of the Grand-Ducal regulation of
Kirchberg.                                                                     24 September 1994 must be regarded as contrary to
                                                                               Article 5(4) in conjunction with point 3 in part A of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                         Annex II to Directive 91/676/EEC.
the Court should:
                                                                          —    (As regards the implementation of adequate monitoring
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations              programmes)
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Article 5(4) and (6) and Article 10(1) in conjunction
      with part A of Annex II, point 3 of Annex III and point                  In the Commission’s view, Luxembourg does not have a
      4(e) of Annex V to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of                       monitoring network covering all its surface waters and
      12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                     groundwater subject to intensive farming which permits
      against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural                   an objective evaluation of the extent of pollution and
      sources (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                 of the impact of action programmes, as required by
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                             Article 5(6) of the directive. More generally, the Com-
                                                                               mission has been provided with no evidence showing the
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                    existence of any monitoring programme. Lastly, the
                                                                               competent authorities have not yet finalised any means
                                                                               of evaluating the effectiveness of the action programmes,
                                                                               and are thus unable to comply with the evaluation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                obligation provided for in the first subparagraph of
                                                                               Article 5(6) of the directive.
—     (As regards the contents of action programmes and the
      failure to take chemical fertilisers into account)
      The Grand-Ducal regulation of 20 September 1994 is                  (1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
      solely concerned with the use in agriculture of organic
      fertilisers, and the Luxembourg authorities have not
      adopted any provision in order to comply with all the
      obligations laid down in point 1(3) of Annex III and
      part A of Annex II to Directive 91/676/EEC as regards


title: Case C-427/04: Action brought on 5 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Action brought on 5 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-427/04)
   (2005/C 6/45)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils and Georgios Zavvos, members of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (1), and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2)

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 20 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 110, 20.4.2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-78/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Rouen — France) — Marc Berel and Others v Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre (Community Customs Code — Articles 213, 233 and 239 — Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt — Remission of import duties — Extinction of the customs debt — No possibility for a jointly and severally liable debtor to rely on a remission granted to another debtor)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Rouen — France) — Marc Berel and Others v Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre
   (Case C-78/10) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Articles 213, 233 and 239 - Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt - Remission of import duties - Extinction of the customs debt - No possibility for a jointly and severally liable debtor to rely on a remission granted to another debtor)
   2011/C 103/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Rouen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Berel, acting as agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Emmanuel Hess, acting as court-appointed administrator of the company Port Angot Développement, Rijn Schelde Mondia France SA, Receveur principal des douanes de Rouen Port, Administration des douanes — Havre port, Société Port Angot Développement, successor to Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers Maprochim SAS, Asia Pulp & Paper France EURL

      Defendants: Administration des douanes de Rouen, Receveur principal des douanes du Havre, Administration des douanes du Havre

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Rouen — Interpretation of Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Remission of import duties — Whether a co-debtor of a customs debt may rely on joint and several liability for customs obligations in order to benefit from a remission of import duties previously accorded to another co-debtor

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 213, 233 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as precluding the application, in the context of joint and several liability for a customs debt within the meaning of Article 213 such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a principle of national law which has the effect that a partial remission of duty granted on the basis of Article 239 to one of the debtors may be relied on by all the other debtors, so that the extinction of the debt provided for in point (b) of Article 233 of that Code relates to the debt as such and thus releases all the jointly and severally liable debtors from payment of the debt to the extent of the amount remitted.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 01. 05. 2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-5/93 P: DSM NV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Application for revision - Admissibility)

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     of the European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacqué, John Carbery
                                                                           and Félix van Craeyenest), supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   (Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) — application for the
                                                                           annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 408/97 of 24 Febru-
                           of 8 July 1999                                  ary 1997 on the conclusion of an Agreement on cooperation
                                                                           in the sea fisheries sector between the European Community
in Case C-5/93 P: DSM NV v Commission of the European                      and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and laying down
                          Communities (1)                                  provisions for its implementation (OJ 1997 L 62, p. 1) —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
    (Appeal — Application for revision — Admissibility)                    P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and
                                                                           P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                          (1999/C 333/12)                                  C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                           L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                           Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          2. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;
In Case C-5/93 P: DSM NV, whose registered office is in                    3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (First Chamber) of 4 November 1992 in Case T-
8/89 REV DSM v Commission [1992] ECR II-2399, seeking to
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
B.J. Drijber) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-                                           of 8 July 1999
trar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which               in Case C-254/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
it:                                                                        the Conseil d’État): Société Baxter and Others v Premier
                                                                                Ministre and Others (1)
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           (Internal taxation — Tax deduction — Expenditure on
2. Orders DSM NV to pay the costs.
                                                                                research — Proprietary medicinal products)
(1) OJ No C 76 of 18.3.1993.                                                                         (1999/C 333/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                           of 8 July 1999                                  In Case C-254/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État
in Case C-189/97: European Parliament v Council of the                     (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                        European Union (1)                                 before that court between Société Baxter, B. Braun Médical SA,
                                                                           Société Fresenius France, Laboratoires Bristol-Myers-Squibb
(EC/Mauritania fisheries agreement — Agreements with                       SA and Premier Ministre, Ministère du Travail et des Affaires
    important budgetary implications for the Community)                    Sociales, Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministère de
                                                                           l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’Alimentation — on the
                          (1999/C 333/13)                                  interpretation of Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 43 EC), 58 of the EC Treaty (now
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Article 48 EC), 92 and 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Articles 87 EC and 90 EC) — the Court, compo-
                                                                           sed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                           L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
In Case C-189/97: European Parliament (Agents: Gregorio                    Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Garzón Clariana, Christian Pennera and Hans Krück) v Council              judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-201/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
C 233/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 25 February                —      annul the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2001 refusing
      2002 imposing on the applicant the penalty provided for                   to classify the applicant in the higher grade of his career
      in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations, namely                      bracket in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
      removal from post without loss of entitlement to pension;                 Regulations;
—     annul any connected and/or subsequent decision;                    —      annul, in so far as is necessary, the express decision
                                                                                adopted by the Court of Auditors on 26 February 2002
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant                              in which it rejected the complaint submitted by the
      EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for non-material                        applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of those regulations;
      damage;
                                                                         —      order the Court of Auditors to pay all the costs of these
—     order the Commission to pay the entire costs.                             proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant was found guilty of a number of criminal                   The applicant in this case, a former official of the Commission
offences by the Cour d’Appel, Brussels. However, that court              and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
ordered a suspended sentence of 5 years subject to a number              contests the refusal of the appointing authority to classify him
of conditions in order to avoid affecting the applicant’s civic          in the higher grade of his career bracket at the time of his
status.                                                                  recruitment to grade B5 step 3, following his inclusion on the
                                                                         list of suitable candidates drawn up on the basis of competition
                                                                         No COM/B/340.
Subsequently, in view of the seriousness of the offences, the
Commission removed the applicant from his post without loss
of entitlement to pension.                                               In support of his claims, the applicant alleges that:
                                                                         —      substantive errors and manifest errors of assessment were
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges lack of a                    made in respect of his professional qualifications, the
statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the defence.                   length and relevance of his professional experience with
Moreover, the applicant claims that the disciplinary measure is                 regard to the post to be filled, and the level of his
disproportionate to the seriousness of the effect of his conduct                remuneration in his successive positions;
on the institution and his work. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.          —      the obligation to state reasons was not observed.
Action brought on 28 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio                       Action brought on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider Corpor-
against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-                   ation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                              ties                                                                     Market
                        (Case T-201/02)                                                           (Case T-203/02)
                        (2002/C 233/48)                                                           (2002/C 233/49)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
of the European Communities on 28 June 2002 by Pierre                    European Communities on 2 July 2002 by The Sunrider
Tomarchio, residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas            Corporation, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner,
Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               Bolte & Partner in Munich, Germany.


title: Case T-27/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — United Kingdom v Commission

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/31

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-27/16)
   (2016/C 111/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, Agent, and S. Lee and M. Gray, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul part of Article 1 of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of the European Commission of 13 November 2015 (1) which held inter alia that part of the agricultural expenditure concerning the calculation of the Value of Marketed Production declared by the United Kingdom was incurred contrary to Union Law, and cannot be financed under the EAGF and the EAFRD, requiring the annulment of five entries (the last entry on p. 42 and first four entries on p. 43) in the Annex to that Decision, which amount to a total financial correction of 1 849 194,86 euros; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law in its interpretation of the requirement that, when calculating the VMP of a Producer Organisation, for the purposes of establishing the ceiling on aid, a Member State may take into account the production of growers joining the organisation. In so holding, the Commission has ignored the clear provisions of, firstly Articles 3(1) and 3(3) of Commission Regulation 1433/2003 (2), and, second, Articles 52(1) and 52(2) of Commission Regulation 1580/2007 (3).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, in its interpretation of the value of production of joiners, the Commission has acted in breach of the principles of legality and legal certainty, which apply with particular force where a measure leads to financial consequences and/or the imposition of a penalty.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union 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) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) (OJ L 303, 2015, p. 35).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational funds, operational programmes and financial assistance (OJ L 203, 2003, p. 25).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ L 350, p. 1).


title: Case C-512/09: Action brought on 10 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/25

         Action brought on 10 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-512/09)
   2010/C 37/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Dimitriou and A. Margelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, or in any event by failing to communicate the measures concerned to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fill its obligations under Article 26(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/66/EC into national law expired on 26 September 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 266 of 26.9.2006, p. 1.


title: Case T-275/09: Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/38

         Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) v Commission
   (Case T-275/09)
   2009/C 220/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, Solicitor, D. Anderson, QC and J. Stratford, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the applicant’s costs of these proceedings are paid by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application, the applicant seeks the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the Commission decision by which the Commission, confirming the opinion issued by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), granted the marketing authorisation for the applicant’s product ‘Lunivia’ but considered that the ‘eszopiclone’ contained in it was not a new active substance under Article 3(2) (a) of Regulation No 726/2004 (1).
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to apply the correct legal criteria for a new active substance in violation of the legislation, in particular of Article 10(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 (2) and annex I, part II, section III of the same directive, as well as the applicable guidance such as Notice to Applicants, in particular its volume 2A and volume 3. The applicant further submits that the approach adopted by the defendant in the contested decision regarding the condition for qualifying as new active substance infringes the object and purpose of the legislative scheme which is predicted not upon concepts of ‘added value’ or comparative efficacy, but upon absolute standards of quality, safety and efficacy.
   Second, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed its essential procedural rights since the EMEA received and took account of representations made by a third party without informing the applicant of their existence or giving it an opportunity to comment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 15 September 1995 in the case of Vereinigte Familapreß Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Case C-368/95)

text:
No C 16/ 10              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The appellant claims that the Court should :                             must Article 30 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning
                                                                         that it precludes the application of legislation of Member
— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 State A prohibiting an undertaking established in Member
      Instance of the European Communities on 28 September               State B from selling in Member State A a periodical
      1995 in Case T-95/94 (*) and take all the ensuing legal            produced in Member State B, where that periodical contains
      steps, and, in particular, refer the case back to the Court        prize puzzle competitions or games which are lawfully
      of First Instance for a decision on the merits,                    organized in Member State B ?
— order the applicants in the proceedings before the Court
      of First Instance to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Infringement of Community law:                                           Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección
                                                                         Octava, by orders of that court of 4 July 1995 , 13 September
                                                                         1995 and 15 November 1995 in the cases of Careda
— the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the                      SA, FEMARA and FACOMARE respectively against
      contested decision was a decision rejecting a complaint;           Administración General del Estado ( Ministerio de
      under Community law as it stands at present, that                                      Economía y Hacienda )
      category of decision does not exist in the field of State
      aid,                                                                       ( Cases C-3 70/95 , C-371/95 and C-372/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/22 )
— the Court of First Instance wrongly examined the
      statement of reasons in relation to the complainants and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the arguments and facts set out in their complaint; a              European Communities by orders of the Audiencia
      complainant who subsequently pleads, in the context of             Nacional (National High Court), Sala de lo
      an action for annulment, the inadequacy of the                     Contencioso-Administrativo ( Chamber for Contentious
      statement of reasons for a decision may only do so in the          Administrative Proceedings ), Sección Octava ( Eighth
      same capacity as any other applicant to whom the                   Section ) of 4 July 1995 , 13 September 1995 and
      decision is of direct and individual concern,                      15 November 1995 , which were received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 30 November 1995 , for preliminary rulings in
— the Court of First Instance carried out, in the guise of a             the cases of Careda SA, FEMARA ( Federación Nacional de
      review of the statement of reasons, a review of the error          Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas y de Azar ) and
      of assessment, and imposed a new procedural                        FACOMARE (Asociación Española de Empresarios de
      obligation, namely an obligation to undertake an                   Máquinas Recreativas ) respectively against Administración
      exchange of views and arguments with the complainant.              General del Estado ( Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda ) on
      The grant to a complainant of a right of access to the             the following questions :
      documentation in a case in which there is no obligation
      to initiate the procedure provided for by Article 93 (2 ) of
                                                                         1.     does the concept of passing on the tax to the
      the EC Treaty constitutes an infringement of the
                                                                         consumer, within the meaning of the sixth Directive
      applicable rules on State aid.
                                                                         ( 77/388/EEC ) (*) of 17 May 1977 and of the rest of the
                                                                         Community legal order, and for determining the concept of
( ] ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 19 .                            turnover tax, require always and in every case the law
                                                                         concerning the tax in question to lay down expressly that the
                                                                         said tax may be passed on to the consumer or is it sufficient,
                                                                         on the other hand, if the tax can be deemed, on a reasonable
                                                                         interpretation of such law, to be actually included in the
                                                                         price paid by the consumer ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht               2 . May a tax which is levied as a fixed charge of a large
Wien by order of that court of 15 September 1995 in the case             amount on the total turnover or revenue generated and
of Vereinigte FamilaprefS Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs                 which takes account of such turnover, if it is ultimately paid
                 GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag
                                                                         by the consumer, be regarded as a turnover tax although
                          ( Case C-368/95 )                              there is no express record ( invoice ) of passing on the tax to
                             ( 96/C 16/21 )                              the consumer, the transactions in question being automatic,
                                                                         by the use of coins, and there being a price for use. As so
                                                                         framed, does it infringe Article 33 of the sixth Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 77/388/EEC ) on value added tax and is it therefore
European Communities by order of the Handelsgericht                      incompatible with that Directive ?
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 15 September 1995 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November
                                                                          0 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vereinigte
Familaprefê Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v.
Heinrich Bauer Verlag on the following question:


title: Case C-83/09 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany and Land Sachsen-Anhalt

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/15

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany and Land Sachsen-Anhalt
   (Case C-83/09 P)
   2009/C 102/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany and Land Sachsen-Anhalt

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declares admissible the action for annulment brought by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by Germany in favour of Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the construction of a production plant for pulp;

               —

               dismiss as inadmissible the action for annulment brought by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the contested act;

               —

               order Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the Commission’s view, the establishment of a right of action against decisions on aid in favour of parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC infringes the requirements laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC as to the admissibility of actions. Parties concerned who are not parties to the aid procedure do not have their own party rights, enforceable by bringing proceedings. Instead, individual concern is to be determined on the basis of the Court’s Plaumann formula. Individual concern can, therefore, arise only by virtue of the economic impact of the aid on the applicant.
   In addition, the judgment under appeal includes an inadmissible reinterpretation of the forms of order sought. In the Commission’s opinion, the Court examined arguments put forward by the applicant which were not put forward in regard to the protection of the applicant’s alleged procedural rights, even though the action was admissible only for the purposes of protecting the alleged procedural rights.
   The judgment under appeal would ultimately lead to the introduction of a popular action against State aid law decisions which is extraneous to Community law.


title: Case T-595/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2014  — BSH v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark compressor technology — Earlier national word marks KOMPRESSOR — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2014 — BSH v OHIM — LG Electronics (compressor technology)
   (Case T-595/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark compressor technology - Earlier national word marks KOMPRESSOR - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 026/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1176/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between LG Electronics, Inc. and BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court 4 June 2002 in Case C-503/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) — Rights attaching to the "golden shares" held by the Kingdom of Belgium in Société nationale de transport par canalisations SA and in Société de distribution du gaz SA)

text:
C 169/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
(b) the right to oppose any decision to transfer or use as                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      security the assets listed in the annex to the Decree — the
      assets in question being the majority of the capital of four
      subsidiaries of the parent company, namely Elf-Aquitaine
      Production, Elf-Antar France, Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-                                                4 June 2002
      Congo SA (Article 2(3) of the Decree),
                                                                             in Case C-503/99: Commission of the European Communi-
and by failing to lay down sufficiently precise and objective                                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
criteria for approval of, or opposition to, the abovementioned
operations, the French Republic has failed to comply with its
obligations under Articles 52 (now, after amendment,
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 43 EC) to Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
                                                                             Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
EC) and Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC), the
                                                                             Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann
                                                                             EC) — Rights attaching to the ‘golden shares’ held by the
(Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
                                                                             Kingdom of Belgium in Société nationale de transport par
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-
                                                                              canalisations SA and in Société de distribution du gaz SA)
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigu-
es, Judges; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 June 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (2002/C 169/06)
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force Article 2(1) and (3) of
      Decree No 93-1298 of 13 December 1993 vesting in the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      State a ‘golden share’ in Société Nationale Elf-Aquitaine,
      according to which the following rights attach to the ‘golden
      share’ held by the French Republic in that company:                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      (a)   any direct or indirect shareholding by a natural or legal
            person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, which
            exceeds the ceiling of one tenth, one fifth or one third of
            the capital of, or voting rights in, the company must first
            be approved by the Minister for Economic Affairs;                In Case C-503/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
                                                                             assisted by F. de Montpellier, M. Picat and A. Theissen),
      (b) the right to oppose any decision to transfer or use as             supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
            security the assets listed in the annex to the Decree — the      Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by J. Crow, barrister,
            assets in question being the majority of the capital of          and D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by
            four subsidiaries of that company, namely Elf-Aquitaine          maintaining in force
            Production, Elf-Antar France, Elf-Gabon SA and Elf-
            Congo SA,
                                                                             —     the provisions of the Royal Decree of 10 June 1994
                                                                                vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in Société nationale
      the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations                de transport par canalisations (Moniteur belge of 28 June
      under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC);                      1994, p. 17333), which carries the following rights:
                                                                                a)   advance notice of any transfer, use as security or
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                                      change in the intended destination of the company’s
                                                                                system of lines and conduits which are used or are
                                                                                capable of being used as major infrastructures for
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of                             the domestic conveyance of energy products must
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.                       be given to the Minister responsible, who shall be
                                                                                entitled to oppose such operations if he considers
                                                                                that they adversely affect the national interest in the
                                                                                energy sector;
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                                b)    the Minister may appoint two representatives of the
                                                                                Federal Government to the board of directors of the
                                                                                company. Those representatives may propose to the
                                                                                Minister the annulment of any decision of the board
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 169/5
            of directors which they regard as contrary to the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            guidelines for the country’s energy policy, including
            the Government’s objectives concerning the coun-                                       (Second Chamber)
            try’s energy supply;
                                                                                16 May 2002
—     the provisions of the Royal Decree of 16 June 1994
      vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in Distrigaz (Moniteur        in Case C-508/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      belge of 28 June 1994, p. 17347), which carries the                 from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Palais am Stadtpark
      following rights:                                                   Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG v Finanzlandes-
                                                                           direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1)
      a)    advance notice of any transfer, use as security or            (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Scope of
            change in the company’s strategic assets must be              application — Limited partnership — Assignment of limited
            given to the Minister responsible, who shall be               partner’s share to a company with limited liability — Levy,
            entitled to oppose such operations if he considers            after the assignment and the entry into force of the directive,
            that they adversely affect the national interest in the       of duty directly proportional to the amount of the contri-
            energy field;                                                                                bution)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/07)
      b)    the Minister may appoint two representatives of the
            Federal Government to the board of directors of the                               (Language of the case: German)
            company. Those representatives may propose to the
            Minister the annulment of any decision of the board
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
            of directors or of the management committee which
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
            they regard as contrary to the guidelines for the
            country’s energy policy,
                                                                          In Case C-508/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
and by failing to lay down precise, objective and stable criteria         EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
for approval of, or opposition to, the operations referred to             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
above, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its               Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
obligations under Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und
amendment, Article 43 EC) and 73b of the EC Treaty (now                   Burgenland, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
Article 56 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
Iglesias, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von         raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412)
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,                 as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris                 of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                 Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the             adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June 2002, in which it:              founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the
                                                                          Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
                                                                          of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
                                                                          Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          The provisions of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay            concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the
      the costs;                                                          Act concerning the conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                          Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                          Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the
                                                                          European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding the
3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             levy of capital duty upon the conversion of a partnership into a capital
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                      company within the meaning of that directive, where, before the entry
                                                                          into force of that directive, a duty such as that provided for in
                                                                          Paragraph 33, item 16(1), point 1(b), of the Gebührengesetz has
                                                                          already been levied on all the capital contributions made for the
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                 acquisition of shares in the partnership.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-521/08: Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-521/08) (1)

   2009/C 282/58

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-87/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Arranz Benitez v Parliament (Officials — Remuneration — Actual shared maintenance of the children following the divorce of two officials — Taken into consideration in order to calculate the tax allowance)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Arranz Benitez v Parliament
   (Case T-87/04) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Actual shared maintenance of the children following the divorce of two officials - Taken into consideration in order to calculate the tax allowance)
   (2006/C 310/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Milagros Irène Arranz Benitez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha-Pascha and L. Knudsen, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Parliament's decision of 15 April 2003 in so far as that decision alters, as from 1 May 2003, the applicant's right to the tax allowance in respect of dependent children.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-237/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — SCA Tissue France v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/56

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — SCA Tissue France v Commission
   (Case T-237/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: SCA Tissue France (Bois-Columbes, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible..

               2.

               SCA Tissue France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2004 in Case T-261/03 Euro Style 94 Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘GLOVE’ — National and international figurative and verbal marks ‘GLOBE’ — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 — Action clearly devoid of legal foundation)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 December 2004
   in Case T-261/03 Euro Style 94 Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for figurative Community trade mark including the verbal element ‘GLOVE’ - National and international figurative and verbal marks ‘GLOBE’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Action clearly devoid of legal foundation)
   (2005/C 69/30)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-269/04, Euro Style 94 Srl, established in Baretta (Italy), represented by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Laporta Insa and A. Folliard-Monguiral), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the OHIM being RCN-Companhia de Importacao e Esportacao de Texteis, LDA, established in Oeiras (Portugal); appeal against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 May 2003 (Case R 67/2001-2), concerning an opposition procedure between RCN-Companhia de Importacao e Esportacao and Eurostyle 94 Srl, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S.S. Papasavvas, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order on 10 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2

               The appellant is ordered to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003


title: Action brought on 27 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-289/98)

text:
C 278/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema             Communities, represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard
di Cassazione by order of that court of 22 May 1998 in              Mongin, both of its Legal Service, with an address for
the case of Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v.          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                     Mario Maraldi SpA                              Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                      (Case C-288/98)
                        (98/C 278/60)                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
European Communities by an order of the Corte Suprema                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 22 May                    Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 July               second general system for the recognition of
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Istituto                  professional education and training to supplement
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v. Mario Maraldi SpA,                Directive 89/48/EEC (1), or by not giving notice of the
on the following questions:                                             necessary      implementing    measures     within    the
                                                                        prescribed period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                        fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that Directive
                                                                        and the EC Treaty,
1. Does a provision of national law, which exempts
    particular categories of undertakings (which, although
    insolvent, are not being wound up and are enjoying
    favourable treatment in the form of suspension of               Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    the claims against them, including those of public
    authorities, and authorisation, granted by a
    discretionary administrative measure, to continue in            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    business) from the payment of penalties incurred
    through non-payment of social security contributions
    constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92?
                                                                    The Member States are required by the binding character
                                                                    of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
                                                                    the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
2. Does such a measure, considered in isolation or in               Directives into national law before the expiry of the
    conjunction with the special regime already enjoyed by          period laid down for that purpose and to communicate
    the undertaking, constitute new State aid or the                those measures immediately to the Commission. That
    alteration of existing aid which is therefore covered by        period expired on 18 June 1994 without the Hellenic
    the obligation of notification as provided for by               Republic having communicated to the Commission
    Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty?                                 provisions transposing the Directive at issue into national
                                                                    law.
3. If that is the case, what are the consequences of                (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.
    non-notification of that measure to the European
    Commission as regards the powers of the national
    court and, in particular, does the illegality of the aid
    allow the court to refuse to apply the provision in
    question?
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-322/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/62)
Action brought on 27 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                    By order of 6 May 1998 the President of the Fifth
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
                      (Case C-289/98)                               Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                                                                    of Case C-322/97: Commission of the European
                        (98/C 278/61)                               Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 27 July 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Action brought on 31 July 1998 by Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-121/98)

text:
10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 312/17
Action brought on 30 July 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq against             Action brought on 31 July 1998 by Taurus Beteiligungs-
      the Commission of the European Communities                  GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                      (Case T-119/98)
                                                                                (Case T-121/98)
                       (98/C 312/42)
                                                                                (98/C 312/43)
               (Language of the case: French)                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of European
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1998
                                                                  by Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG, whose
by AndreÂ Hecq, residing at Bonlez (Belgium), represented
                                                                  registered office is in Ismaning (Germany), represented by
by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                  Hermanns and Ritvay, Rechtsanwälte, Berlin, with an
service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue
                                                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Heinrich Heine.
                                                                  Loesch and Wolters, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul Commission Decision C(1998) 1439 final of
Ð annul the implicit decision, deemed to have been made               27 May 1998, as amended by Commission Decision
    on 6 May 1998, rejecting the complaint submitted by               C(1998) 1518 final of 2 June 1998, concerning a
    the applicant on 5 January 1998 by which he                       procedure applying Council Regulation (EEC)
    contested the decision of 17 October 1997 calculating             No 4064/89 (the Merger Control Regulation') in Case
    the expenses granted to him in respect of the mission             IV/M.993 Bertelsmann/Kirch/Premiere,
    to Ispra undertaken by him between 16 September and
    20 September 1997,
                                                                  Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with
    the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of         By the contested decision of 27 May 1998 (in the version
    the proceedings, including, in particular, the cost of        notified on 2 June 1998) the notified concentration
    having an address for service, travel and subsistence         through the acquisition by CLT-UFA SA and Taurus Betei-
    expenses and lawyers' fees, in accordance with                ligungs-GmbH & Co. KG of joint control over the
    Article 73(b) of those Rules.                                 undertakings of Premiere Medien GmbH & Co. KG, Beta-
                                                                  Digital Gesellschaft für digitale Fernsehdienste mbH and
                                                                  BetaResearch Gesellschaft für Entwicklung und Vermark-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               tung digitaler Infrastrukturen mbH was declared
                                                                  incompatible with the common market and the
                                                                  functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3)
The applicant, a grade B 1 official, is currently on              of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
secondment in his capacity as the political secretary of a        1989 (as amended). In the Commission's view, that
trade-union/staff association. Upon the occasion of a             concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening
plenary meeting in Ispra of the Central Staff Committee,          of dominant market positions, whereby effective
he received a travel order covering a period of five days.        competition in a substantial part of the Community would
Having completed that mission, the applicant submitted a          be significantly impaired.
request for reimbursement of the mission expenses.
However, the department dealing with missions within
DG IX of the Commission drew up a calculation of                  In its action, the applicant first complains of the
mission expenses which granted the applicant a daily              infringement of essential procedural requirements. It
subsistence allowance in respect of only four and a half          maintains that the Commission infringed the principle of
days.                                                             objective investigation in that it had already determined
                                                                  upon a negative decision before the actual proceeding
                                                                  began, without obtaining adequate knowledge of the
The sole plea advanced in the present action alleges              subject matter. The applicant's right of access to the files
infringement of the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of           was also infringed, as only partial access was granted and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in that the                   the time allowed was too short. In many respects,
administration granted to the applicant, in respect of the        moreover, the subject matter was insufficiently explained.
mission undertaken by him, a daily subsistence allowance          With its demand for a particular technical solution in the
for only four and a half days instead of five days.               area of digital television, the Commission had exceeded its
                                                                  powers and attempted to impose changes in market
                                                                  structure that went far beyond the subject matter of the
                                                                  concentration proceeding.
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.10.98
Secondly, the applicant claims that there has been an              to be a member of the temporary staff, became for the
infrignement of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The                   first time an official as such, or it relied on Articles 31 and
prerequisites for a prohibition of the Bertelsmann/Kirch/          32 of the Staff Regulations and should state the reasons
Premiere/DF1/DSF concentration were not met, since the             for its refusal to attach any weight whatever to the
concentration would not alter the market position. The             professional experience gained by the applicant over a
concentration in BetaDigital was also wrongly prohibited,          period of nearly 13 years prior to his entry into service as
and the prohibition of the concentration in BetaResearch           an official.
could not be justified. That prohibition was not supported
by the necessary statement of reasons pursuant to                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                      his claims:
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the Commission should           Ð infringement of Articles 4, 7, 31 and 32 of the Staff
have allowed the concentration at least after the                       Regulations, in that, according to Community case-
participants had declared themselves willing to give                    law, Article 32 of the Staff Regulations governs the
undertakings which would allow and encourage                            position of staff members who become Community
competition by third parties in the areas of both                       officials for the first time following a recruitment
technology and programme rights.                                        procedure. By contrast, Article 46 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, on the basis of which the contested
                                                                        decision appears to have been adopted, is designed to
                                                                        govern the promotion of Community staff members
                                                                        who already possess the status of official,
Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Claude Bochu                    Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    reasons, as laid down in Article 25 of the Staff
                       (Case T-123/98)                                  Regulations. The need to state such reasons is all the
                                                                        greater in the present case since the recruitment
                        (98/C 312/44)                                   procedure relating to the post in issue was initially
                                                                        open to grade A 4 officials and the defendant thus
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        implicitly accepted that the specific requirements of
                                                                        the post in question justified the recruitment of an
An action against the Commission of the European                        official of that grade.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 1998
                                                                   Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been in the
by Claude Bochu, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   present case a manifest error of assessment, breach of the
Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
                                                                   duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                   officials and violation of the principles of good
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                   management and sound administration. He states in that
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   regard that at no time during the procedure did either the
                                                                   Classification Committee or DG IX contact DG XI in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        order to obtain information concerning the specific needs
                                                                   of the service, with the result that the appointing authority
Ð annul the Commission's decision to appoint the                   possessed no information whatever enabling it to examine
    applicant a probationer official, in so far as that            whether the specific needs of the service required the
    appointment classifies him in grade A 7, step 1,               recruitment of the applicant in a grade other than the
                                                                   lowest grade. Moreover, the appointing authority ignored
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including those            the fact that he possessed over seven years' post-university
    incurred by the applicant in defending his interests           experience and the level of responsibility of the duties
    during the pre-litigation stage.                               which had been entrusted to him in the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a former grade B 3 member of the
temporary staff who, having passed internal competition
COM/A/16/93, was appointed to category A, contests the             Action brought on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi
decision of the appointing authority to classify him in                      against the European Training Foundation
grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                                (Case T-124/98)
He observes, first, that the contested decision refers in its                               (98/C 312/45)
preamble to Articles 1, 2, 4, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 34 of the
Staff Regulations. Thus it did not officially refer to the                          (Language of the case: French)
third paragraph of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations,
which is nevertheless the only provision applicable to             An action against the European Training Foundation was
officials who, having passed a competition, move up to a           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
higher category. In his view, therefore, either the                Communities on 2 August 1998 by Corrado Politi,
Commission relied on that provision and should state the           residing in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
reasons for applying it to the applicant, who, upon ceasing        Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels


title: Case C-458/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/43

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.
   (Case C-458/13)
   2013/C 344/74
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants on a point of law: Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler

      Respondents on a point of law: Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc.

      Question referred

   Does Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) preclude the application of a provision (in this case Paragraph 95a(3) of the UrhG [Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Law on copyright and related rights]) which transposes Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC into national law if the technological measure in question protects not only works or other subject-matter but also computer programs?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-539/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 21 October 2011 — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 21 October 2011 — Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo v Comune di Campobello di Mazara
   (Case C-539/11)
   2011/C 370/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo

      Defendant: Comune di Campobello di Mazara

      Intervening party: Fotottica Media Vision di Luppino Natale Fabrizio e.c. s.n.c.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must European Union law on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law (in the present case, Article 1 of Law No 12/2004 of the Autonomous Region of Sicily) under which the establishment of opticians’ practices in the territory of a Member State (in the present case, in a part of that territory) is subject to restrictions based on population density and the distance between practices — restrictions which, in theory, constitute an infringement of those fundamental freedoms — reflects an overriding reason relating to the public interest, linked to the need to protect human health?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, then, under European Union law, must the restrictions based on population density (one practice for every 8 000 residents) and on distance (300 metres between one practice and the next), laid down by Law No 12/2004 of the Autonomous Region of Sicily for the establishment of opticians’ practices in the regional territory, be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of attaining the objective reflecting the abovementioned overriding reason relating to the public interest?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, then, under European Union law, are the restrictions based on population density (one practice for every 8 000 residents) and on distance (300 metres between one practice and the next), laid down by Law No 12/2004 of the Autonomous Region of Sicily for the establishment of opticians’ practices in the regional territory, proportionate — that is to say, not excessive — for the purposes of attaining the objective reflecting the abovementioned overriding reason relating to the public interest?


title: Case C-111/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato and Others
   (Case C-111/16)
   (2016/C 191/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Udine

      Criminal proceedings against:

   Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga

      Questions referred

               1.

               When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures within the meaning of Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, even if in the Commission’s assessment in respect of certain food or feed there is no serious, evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment?

               2.

               Where the Commission notifies the Member State which had sought its assessment that its assessment is at odds with the Member State’s request — an assessment which in theory precludes the need to adopt emergency measures — and where, accordingly, the Commission does not adopt such emergency measures within the meaning of Article 34 Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) as requested by that Member State, is the Member State which made the request authorised, pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, to adopt interim emergency measures?

               3.

               May considerations relating to the precautionary principle which go beyond the parameters of serious and evident risk to human or animal health or the environment in the use of food or feed justify the adoption of interim emergency measures by a Member State within the meaning of Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003?

               4.

               Where it is clear and obvious that the European Commission has made the assessment that the substantive conditions for the adoption of emergency measures for food or feed are not met, which is later confirmed by an EFSA Scientific Opinion, and where that assessment was notified in writing to the Member State which made the request, may that Member State continue to maintain in force its existing interim emergency measures and/or extend the validity of such interim emergency measures, when the interim period for which they were put in place has expired?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).