title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo, by judgment of that court of 5 February 1997 in the case of Jan Blauw and Others v. Gavema BV (Case C-50/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 94/13
       ( a ) each group is picked up at one point of departure             2 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             and set down at one point of destination                            that Geas itself chose, at the time, to carry out that
             ( including, on occasions, a visit to a tourist                     maintenance using a geyser team specially set up for
             attraction as part of that journey);                                that purpose ?
       ( b ) the same or similar journey is repeated on a                  3 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
             number of occasions pursuant to a block                             that the fitters in Geas' geyser team also carried out
             reservation made by a tour operator;                                work on other appliances apart from those belonging
                                                                                to Gavema, occupying in the fitters' estimation 25 %
       (c ) the precise route to be taken is not predetermined;                   of their working time and in that of Gavema 40 % ?
       is a 'special regular service' within the meaning of that           4 . Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the finding
       Article ?                                                                  that maintenance works on bathroom geysers
                                                                                belonging to Gavema were also carried out by central
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is yes, is Article 4 ( 3 ) of                     heating fitters employed by Geas ?
       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 (2 ) to be
       construed so that the distance of 'the route covered by             ( 1 ) OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
       the service in question' is to be calculated by reference
       to :
       ( a ) each component part of the driver's journey during
             the day;
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
       ( b ) the aggregate of such component parts.                        Cassation, Paris, by judgment of that court of 28 January
                                                                           1997 in the case of La Reunion Europeenne and Others v.
4. If the answer to Question 2 is no, is Article 2 ( 3 ) of                             Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor and Others
       Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 to be construed                                               ( Case C-51/97)
       so that the carriage of such passengers in such                                                    ( 97/C 94/27)
       circumstances is an ' occasional service ' within the
       meaning of that Article ?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas
      common rules for the international carriage of passengers by         sation ( Court of Cassation ), Paris, of 28 January 1997,
      coach and bus ( OJ No L 74, 20 . 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ).                  which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985            1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Reunion
      on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to       Europeenne and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor
      road transport ( OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ).               and Others, on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . ( a ) Is an action by which the consignee of goods
                                                                                found to be damaged on completion of a transport
                                                                                operation by sea and then by land, or by which its
                                                                                insurer who has been subrogated to its rights after
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                             compensating it, seeks redress for the damage
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo, by judgment of that                                 suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the
court of 5 February 1997 in the case of Jan Blauw and                                   maritime transport, not against the person who
                         Others v. Gavema BY                                            issued that document on his headed paper but
                            ( Case C-50/97)                                             against the person whom the plaintiff considered
                                                                                to be the actual maritime carrier, based on the
                              ( 97/C 94/26 )                                            contract of transport and does it, for that or any
                                                                                other reason, fall within the scope of matters
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                         relating to contract within the meaning of Article 5
of the European Communities by judgment of the                                          ( 1 ) of the Convention ?
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Almelo ( District Court,
                                                                                ( b ) If the foregoing question is answered in the
Almelo) of 5 February 1997, which was received at the                                   negative, is the matter one relating to tort, delict
Court Registry on 7 February 1997, for a preliminary                                    or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 )
ruling in the case of Jan Blauw and Others v. Gavema BV                                 of the Convention or is it appropriate to have
on the following questions:                                                             recourse to the principle laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                                the Convention that the courts of the State in
1 . In the light of the finding that Gavema has terminated                              whose territory the defendant is domiciled have
       the maintenance contract with Geas in respect of the                             jurisdiction ?
       geysers leased out by it, and has itself taken over the
       maintenance work relating to those geysers, can that                       (c ) In the event that the matter is to be regarded as
       be said, in principle, to constitute a transfer of part of                       one relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, may the
       an undertaking within the meaning of Directive 77/                               place where the consignee, after completion of the
        187/EEC ( M ?                                                                   maritime transport operation and then the final


title: Case C-232/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/18

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.
   (Case C-232/11 P)
   2011/C 204/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Siemens Transmission & Distribution Limited (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should

               —

               vary the fourth indent of Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the contested judgment, so that the fine there imposed on is reduced to at least EUR 7 400 000;

               —

               alternatively, set aside Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the contested judgment, to the extent that it concerns Reyrolle, and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               in any event order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that there is an infringement of the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence. In the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to review the General Court misinterpreted Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003, where it penalised the undertaking Rolls-Royce/Reyrolle for the period from 1988 until 1998 not on the basis of the conduct of that undertaking, but instead relied on the economic power of an economic entity which only came into existence many years later (with the Reyrolle sale to VA Technologie).
   Further, the appellant submits that there is an infringement of the principles, well established in the case-law of the Court of Justice, of equal treatment and proportionality. In the framework of Article 31 of Regulation 1/2003 the General Court applied systemically different methods of calculation, which significantly prejudiced the appellant as compared with other parties on whom fines were imposed. No objective justification for this discrimination is apparent.


title: Case C-127/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Société Sollac Méditerranée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys and Société Arcelor v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Société Sollac Méditerranée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys and Société Arcelor v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable
   (Case C-127/07)
   (2007/C 117/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Société Sollac Méditerranée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal, Société Imphy Alloys and Société Arcelor

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement durable
   Question referred
   Is Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 (1) valid in the light of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as that Directive makes the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme applicable to installations in the steel sector without including in its scope the aluminium and plastic industries?

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-49/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Fahas v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Right to a fair hearing — Right to effective judicial protection — Statement of reasons — Action for damages)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — Fahas v Council
   (Case T-49/07) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Right to a fair hearing - Right to effective judicial protection - Statement of reasons - Action for damages)
   2011/C 30/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofiane Fahas (Mielkendorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Zillmer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and S. Marquardt, and subsequently by M. Bishop, J.-P. Hix and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part, most recently, of Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21), in so far it concerns the applicant, and an order that the Council no longer refer to the applicant’s name in its future decisions, in the absence of any final judicial decision, and also a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Sofiane Fahas, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-849/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission
   (Case T-849/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation - Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements - Application for a stay of execution of a measure - Lack of any urgency))
   (2017/C 293/40)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Request on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v Commission (T-849/16 R) is revoked.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 July 1998 in Case T-61/96: José Francisco Meoro Avilés v Commission of the European Communities (Notices of competition - Non-submission of application - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
24.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 327/23
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Richard Luff, of the Brussels Bar,        1. The application is dismissed.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
Council of the European Union (Agents: Antonio Tanca,               2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 648/96              (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
of 28 March 1996 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of bicycles originating in Indonesia,
Malaysia and Thailand and collecting definitively the
provisional duties imposed (OJ L 91, 12.4.1996, p. 1) Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R.
García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                             of 16 September 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1998, in which
it:                                                                 in Case T-215/97: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Notice of competition Ð Refusal to admit to
1. Dismisses the application;                                                                competition)
                                                                                (98/C 327/42)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
( ) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
 1
                                                                    In Case T-215/97: Sari Kristiina Jouhki, a nurse, residing
                                                                    in Pyhäjärvi, Finland, represented by Harri Ojala, of the
                                                                    Oulu Bar, against Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Esa Passivirta) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open
                                                                    Competition COM/B/973 not to allow the applicant to
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          take part in the competition Ð the Court of First Instance
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, K.
                       (Third Chamber)                              Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                    of 15 September 1998
                                                                    1998 in which it:
in Case T-142/97: EugeÂnio Branco Ld.a v Commission of
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application;
(Actions for annulment Ð European Social Fund              Ð
Reduction of financial contribution Ð Certification by    the
                                                                    2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Member State Ð Error of assessment of the facts            Ð
Legitimate expectations Ð Legal certainty                  Ð
                        Proportionality)                            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
                         (98/C 327/41)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                            a
In Case T-142/97: EugeÂnio Branco Ld., established in                                      of 20 July 1998
Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova
                                                                          in Case T-61/96: JoseÂ Francisco Meoro AvileÂs v
de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Maria               (Notices of competition Ð Non-submission of application
Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for                       Ð Action for annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
the annulment of the decision of the Commission C(96)
3170 of 16 December 1996 reducing a financial                                               (98/C 327/43)
contribution granted by the European Social Fund to the
applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 1998, the                In Case T-61/96: JoseÂ Francisco Meoro AvileÂs, a technical
operative part of which reads as follows:                           industrial engineer, residing in Alcantarilla (Spain),
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
represented by Ramón MareÂs Salvador, of the Madrid Bar,           represented by Nicholas Forwood QC Ð application for
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   annulment of a decision of the Committee of the Regions
Chambers of Lorang & AssocieÂs, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v               refusing to pay the applicant the daily subsistence
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Ana                allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the
María Alves Vieira and Blanca VilaÂ Costa) Ð application           Staff Regulations for the entire period of his probation
under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC                plus one month Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Treaty, first, for annulment of competition notices EUR/           Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts
LA/97 and EUR/LA/98 of 1 March 1996 (OJ C 62 AL,                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
1.3.1996) and, second, for an order requiring the                  order on 20 August 1998, the operative part of which is
Commission to modify its guides for candidates taking              as follows:
part in interinstitutional competitions or in open
competitions, in particular the guide annexed to the
notices of competition, and any other publication relating
to access to the Community public service, in such a way           1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any
as to include ingenería teÂcnica' (technical engineering)              foundation in law.
amongst the national educational qualifications required
for admission to open competitions' Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,               2. The parties shall each bear their own expenses.
Registrar, made an order on 20 July 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                                of 19 August 1998
                                                                   in Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Judgment of the Court of First Instance Ð
                                                                   Application for reclassification in grade Ð Objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility Ð Material new fact Ð Admissibility)
                                                                                (98/C 327/45)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 20 August 1998
in Case T-132/97: Michael Collins v Committee of the                              (Language of the case: French)
              Regions of the European Union (1)
(Probationary officials Ð Daily subsistence allowance Ð
Period in respect of which granted Ð Case manifestly               In Case T-160/97: Hans Gevaert, an official of the
                   lacking any foundation)                         Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Merelbeke (Belgium), represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of
                        (98/C 327/44)                              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Christine
               (Language of the case: English)                     Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Commission of 26 August 1996 rejecting
                                                                   the applicant's request for a review of his classification in
                                                                   grade Ð the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
In Case T-132/97, Michael Collins, an official of the              composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and P.
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
residing in Brussels, represented by Vassilis N. Akritidis, of     19 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
the Athens Bar, and Jonathan R. Branton, Solicitor, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, against
Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                    1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2005 in Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of travel agency services for travel undertaken by officials and agents of the institutions)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 6 July 2005
   in Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of travel agency services for travel undertaken by officials and agents of the institutions)
   (2005/C 217/87)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-148/04: TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA, established in Mechelen (Belgium), initially represented by R. Ergec and K. Möric, and then by B. Lissoir, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Wagon-Lits Travel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by F. Herbert and H. Van Peer, lawyers, and D. Harrison, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg — application both for annulment of the Commission's decisions not to award to the applicant lot No 1 of the contract covered by Notice No 2003/S 143 129409 for the provision of travel agency services but to award that lot to another undertaking and also for damages to compensate for the loss suffered by the applicant following the rejection of its tender — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener, including those of the proceedings on the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004


title: Case T-465/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Vego Supermercados v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/63

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Vego Supermercados v Commission
   (Case T-465/14)
   2014/C 253/86
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Vego Supermercados, SA (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter, dated 13 March 2013 , in the case of Fred Olsen and others v Staten v/Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter (Case E-3/13)

text:
               19.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/8

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter, dated 13 March 2013, in the case of Fred Olsen and others v Staten v/Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter
   (Case E-3/13)
   2013/C 270/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 13 March 2013 from Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter (the Appeals Board of the Central Taxation Office for Large-Sized Enterprises), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fred Olsen and others v Staten v/Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter, on the following questions:

               1.

               Do trusts as a form of establishment fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 31 EEA? Supplementary question: If so, who holds rights pursuant to the provisions of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               If the first main question is answered in the affirmative: Does a trust meet the requirement of economic activity provided for in Article 31 EEA?

               3.

               If the first main question is answered in the negative: Does a trust fall within the scope of the right to free movement of capital provided for in Article 40 EEA?

               4.

               If the first or third main question is answered in the affirmative: Do the Norwegian CFC rules involve one or more restrictions on the freedom of establishment or the right to free movement of capital?

               5.

               If the fourth main question is answered in the affirmative: Can the restriction be deemed to be justified on the grounds of overriding public interests, and is the restriction proportionate?


20150731044616792015/C 270/60752014TFPC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150709454511Case F-75/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4510120150709EN0060451451Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 July 2015 — Vecchio v Joint undertaking ECSEL
   (Case F-75/14) (
         1
      )2015/C 270/60Language of the case: GreekThe President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 48.


title: Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) (Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction right — Fair compensation — Concept of ‘reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ — Consequences of the non-application of technological measures which are available to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts — Consequences of an express or implied authorisation to reproduce)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort) v Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), and Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11) v Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)
   (Joined Cases C-457/11 to C-460/11) (1)

   (Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction right - Fair compensation - Concept of ‘reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ - Consequences of the non-application of technological measures which are available to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts - Consequences of an express or implied authorisation to reproduce)
   2013/C 225/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort), Fujitsu Technology Solutions GmbH (C-459/11), Hewlett-Packard GmbH (C-460/11)

      Defendants: Kyocera, formerly Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH, Epson Deutschland GmbH, Xerox GmbH (C-457/11), Canon Deutschland GmbH (C-458/11), Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of 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) — Reproduction right — Concept of ‘reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ in Article 5(2)(a) of that directive — Possible inclusion of reproductions effected by means of printers and plotters

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               With regard to the period from 22 June 2001, the date on which 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 entered into force, to 22 December 2002, the date by which that directive was to have been transposed into national law, acts of using protected works or other subject-matter are not affected by that directive.

               2.

               In the context of an exception or limitation provided for by Article 5(2) or (3) of Directive 2001/29, an act by which a rightholder may have authorised the reproduction of his protected work or other subject-matter has no bearing on the fair compensation owed, whether it is provided for on a compulsory or an optional basis under the relevant provision of that directive.

               3.

               The possibility of applying technological measures under Article 6 of Directive 2001/29 cannot render inapplicable the condition relating to fair compensation provided for by Article 5(2)(b) of that directive.

               4.

               The concept of ‘reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as including reproductions effected using a printer and a personal computer, where the two are linked together. In this case, it is open to the Member States to put in place a system in which the fair compensation is paid by the persons in possession of a device contributing, in a non-autonomous manner, to the single process of reproduction of the protected work or other subject-matter on the given medium, in so far as those persons have the possibility of passing on the cost of the levy to their customers, provided that the overall amount of the fair compensation owed as recompense for the harm suffered by the author at the end of that single process must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained by means of a single device.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case C-257/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos (Greece) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos (Greece) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE v Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia
   (Case C-257/09)
   2009/C 282/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfa Vita Vasilopoulos AE, formerly Trofo Super-Markets AE

      Defendants: The Hellenic Republic and Local Authorities of the Prefecture of Lakonia
   By order of 7 August 2009 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided that Case C-257/09 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos) should be removed from the register.


title: Case T-404/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2009 — ETF v Landgren (Appeals — Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision to dismiss — Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Manifest error of assessment — Unlimited jurisdiction — Monetary compensation)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2009 — ETF v Landgren
   (Case T-404/06) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision to dismiss - Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Unlimited jurisdiction - Monetary compensation)
   2009/C 256/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Pia Landgren (Revigliasco, Italy) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 26 October 2006 in Case F 1/05 Landgren v ETF [2006] EC- SC-I-A-123 and II-A-I 459 seeking to have that judgment set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders the European Training Foundation (ETF) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Landgren in the present instance;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-632/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (OCTASA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark OCTASA — Prior German and Benelux word marks PENTASA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (OCTASA)
   (Case T-632/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark OCTASA - Prior German and Benelux word marks PENTASA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 256/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Slopek, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2015 (Case R 2386/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tillotts Pharma AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case T-432/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014  — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/58

         Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission
   (Case T-432/14)
   2014/C 253/78
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following factual considerations:

               1.

               The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards.

               2.

               Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions.

               3.

               The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery.

               4.

               The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs.

               5.

               The decision that the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs was made for reasons different from those justifying the granting to the Commission of the power to order such recovery.


title: Case T-10/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Portela & Companhia v OHIM — Torrens Cuadrado and Gilbert Sanz (Bial) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Bial — Earlier national word mark BIAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Proof of existence of the earlier mark — Coexistence of earlier marks — Plea amending subject matter of the proceedings — Evidence presented for the first time before the Court of First Instance — Costs incurred before the Opposition Division)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Portela & Companhia v OHIM — Torrens Cuadrado and Gilbert Sanz (Bial)
   (Case T-10/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Bial - Earlier national word mark BIAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Proof of existence of the earlier mark - Coexistence of earlier marks - Plea amending subject matter of the proceedings - Evidence presented for the first time before the Court of First Instance - Costs incurred before the Opposition Division)
   (2008/C 22/79)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portela & Companhia, SA (S. Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: J. Conceição Pimenta, Lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz (Gava, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between (a) Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz and (b) Portela & Companhia, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 897/2004-1) in so far as it orders the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 600 towards the costs incurred by Mr Torrens Cuadrado and Mr Gilbert Sanz for the opposition proceedings.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application.

               3.

               Orders Portela & Companhia, SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, half the costs incurred by OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-355/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark Walzer Traum — Earlier national word mark Walzertraum — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum)
   (Case T-355/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark Walzer Traum - Earlier national word mark Walzertraum - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 63/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria) (represented by: T. Raubal, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 623/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Wedl & Hofmann GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-312/99 (1)

   (2004/C 228/104)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-312/99, Technische Handelsonderneming Van Dooren B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-147/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Court with jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict’ )

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Sweden) — ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB v Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV
   (Case C-147/12) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Court with jurisdiction - Special jurisdiction in ‘matters relating to contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict and quasi-delict’)
   2013/C 260/23
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ÖFAB, Östergötlands Fastigheter AB

      Defendant: Frank Koot, Evergreen Investments BV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland — Intrepretation of Article 5(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2001, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1) — Whether or not included within special jurisdiction in matters relating to contract or in matters relating to tort, delict and quasi delict — Legal proceedings brought in Member State A against a natural person domiciled in Member State B who was a member of the board of directors of a limited company with its registered office in Member State A, and against a limited company having its registered office in Member State B which held the majority of the shares in the company with its registered office in Member State A — Action seeking a declaration that a member of the board of directors of a limited company is liable for the debts of that company resulting from the failure of the member of the board of directors to carry out certain formalities intended to monitor the financial situation of the company — Action seeking a declaration that the owner of a limited company is liable for the acts of another where the company continues trading despite being undercapitalised and despite the legal obligation to put the company into liquidation

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi delict’ in Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers actions such as those at issue in the main proceedings brought by a creditor of a limited company seeking to hold liable a member of the board of directors of that company and one of its shareholders for the debts of that company, because they allowed that company to continue to carry on business even though it was undercapitalised and was forced to go into liquidation.;

               2.

               The concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that as regards actions seeking to hold liable a member of the board of directors and a shareholder of a limited company for the debts of that company, that place is situated in the place to which the activities carried out by that company and the financial situation related to those activities are connected.

               3.

               The fact that the claim at issue has been transferred by the initial creditor to another, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, has no impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-46/05: Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/10

         Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
   (Case C-46/05)
   (2005/C 93/19)
   Language of procedure: English
   An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission requests the Court

               a)

               to find that Ireland has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27th November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1) or by failing to ensure that management and labour have introduced the necessary measures by agreement, and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof;
               and

               b)

               to condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 302, 01.12.2000, p. 57


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 June 2003 in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 Pietro Del Vaglio v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Weighting — Pension — Definition of residence — Burden of proof — United Kingdom)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 184/33
Plenary session                                                          In connection with those various orders, the First Chamber,
                                                                         presided over by the President of the Court of First Instance,
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance               shall not be taken into consideration at each third turn.
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 32(1)
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that
where, following the designation of an Advocate General                  The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an            that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view
even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in          to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance
with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge
who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according to
their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is
the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for interim measures
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance                                          of 4 June 2003
decided in accordance with Article 106 of its Rules of Proce-
dure, as amended on 21 May 2003, that where the President is
absent or prevented from sitting to hear an application for
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 Pietro Del Vaglio v
interim measures, to designate to replace him:
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
—     for the period 1 August to 30 September 2003, Judge
      García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
      sitting, Judge Lenaerts, Judge Tiili or Judge Forwood, in          (Officials — Weighting — Pension — Definition of resi-
      that order;                                                                 dence — Burden of proof — United Kingdom)
—     for the period 1 October 2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge
      García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
      sitting, Judge Lenaerts.                                                                      (2003/C 184/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
established the following criteria for the assignment of cases to
the Chambers for the period between 1 October 2003 and                   In Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01: Pietro Del Vaglio, a
31August 2004 pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of Proce-              former official of the Commission of the European Commu-
dure:                                                                    nities, residing in London, represented by G. Vandersanden and
                                                                         L. Levi, lawyers, against the Commission of the European
1.    Cases shall be assigned, with effect from the lodging of           Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for the annul-
      the application and without prejudice to any subsequent            ment of the Commission's decisions of 5 April 2000 and
      application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Proce-           6 September 2001 refusing to apply the United Kingdom
      dure, to Chambers of three Judges...                               weighting to the applicant's pension from, respectively, 8 May
                                                                         1999 and 24 September 2000, and for damages and default
2.    Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn,                  interest on the remainder of the pension owed, the Court of
      following four different orders depending on the date on           First Instance (single judge: V. Tiili); Registrar: J. Palacio
      which the cases were registered at the Registry:                   González, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 4 June
                                                                         2003, in which it:
      —     for cases concerning implementation of the rules on
            competition applicable to undertakings, of the rules
            on State aid and the rules on measures to protect
            trade;                                                       1.    dismisses the application in Case T-124/01;
      —     for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC
            Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;                   2.    annuls the Commission's decision of 6 September 2001 in so
                                                                               far as the Commission refused to apply the United Kingdom
      —     for the cases concerning intellectual property rights              weighting to the applicant's pension from 1 January 2001;
            referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Proce-
            dure;
      —     for all other cases.                                         3.    dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-320/01;
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/34               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
4.    orders the Commission to pay default interest to the applicant        1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      at the rate set by the European Central Bank for capital
      refinancing operations in force during the various phases of the
      period concerned, increased by two percentage points per annum,       2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      on the arrears of pension from 1 January 2001 to 31 March
      2001; that interest must be calculated from the various dates at      (1) OJ C 275 29.9.2001.
      which each payment under the pension scheme should have been
      made, up to the date on which the payment was effected;
5.    in Case T-124/01, orders the parties to bear their own costs;
6.    in Case T-320/01, orders the Commission to bear its own costs
      and pay half the applicant's costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
7.    In Case T-320/01, orders the applicant to bear half his own
      costs.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.02.
                                                                            in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW Agro-
                                                                            Sciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2003/C 184/77)
                          of 30 April 2003                                                      (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences BV, established in
                                                                            Rotterdam (Netherlands), DOW AgroSciences Ltd, established
(Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission                           in Hitchin (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem
decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought                    and C. Mereu, lawyers, supported by European Crop Protection
by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required                    Association (ECPA), having its registered office in Brussels
                  to repay aid — Inadmissibility)                           (Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
                                                                            lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
                                                                            M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                           (2003/C 184/76)                                  M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch), APPLICATION for partial annulment of
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
                                                                            priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
                                                                            Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the President of
In Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, estab-                  the Court of First Instance has made an order on 6 May 2003,
lished in Gotha (Germany), represented by M. Matzat, lawyer,                the operative part of which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Buccis) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on                      1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs
GmbH & Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH, together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte                       2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik                           incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL
Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH;                    3.    The Commission and the European Crop Protection Association
Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH)                           shall bear their own costs.
(OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and               (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
30 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-175/06: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile Di Genova — Italy) — Alessandro Tedesco v Tomasoni Fittings SrL, RWO Marine Equipment Ltd

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/31

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 27 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile Di Genova — Italy) — Alessandro Tedesco v Tomasoni Fittings SrL, RWO Marine Equipment Ltd
   (Case C-175/06) (1)

   (2007/C 315/52)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


C 358/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de              The time-limit here passed on 23 November 1995 without
Prud'hommes (Industrial Tribunal), Bobigny, by judgment             the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
of 2 July 1998 in the case of Bernard Bauduin and                   necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA                      form of order sought by the Commission.
                        (Case C-360/98)
                                                                    (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
                         (98/C 358/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
Prud'hommes, Bobigny, of 2 July 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1998, for a                   Removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (1)
preliminary ruling in the case of Bernard Bauduin and
                                                                                (98/C 358/23)
Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA on the following
question:
                                                                    By order of 16 September 1998 the President of the Court
Is Article 18 of the Agreement of 5 July 1991 compatible            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
with the provisions of Community law, and Article 119 of            removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (reference for
the Treaty of Rome in particular?                                   a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
                                                                    Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                    for Defence ex parte: Terence Perkins.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Action brought on 9 October 1998 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-362/98)
                         (98/C 358/22)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (1)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                                    (98/C 358/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    By order of 25 September 1998 the President of the Court
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal               of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (reference for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           AngouleÃme): SA Otor Godard v. Administration des
                                                                    Impôts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,            (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary
    to comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC (1) of
    23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety
    and health requirements for work on board fishing
    vessels, and/or by failing to notify the Commission of
    those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to                   Removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (1)
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                                              (98/C 358/25)
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
    proceedings.
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (reference for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. The Secretary of
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 State for Trade and Industry ex parte: The Consumers'
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  Association and Which? Ltd.
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.          (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.


title: Case C-440/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3 and 4)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-440/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3 and 4)
   (2007/C 315/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to have ensured appropriate treatment of urban waste water in 24 agglomerations
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure that the agglomerations of Artemida, Chrysoupoli, Igoumenitsa, Heraklion (Crete), Katerini, Koropi, Lefkimmi, Litochoro (Prieria), Malia, Markopoulo, Megara, Nea Kidonia (Crete), Navpaktos, Nea Makri, Parikia (Paros), Poros-Galatas, Rafina, Thessaloniki (tourist zone), Tripoli, Zakynthos, Alexandria (Imathia), Edessa and Kalymnos are, where appropriate, provided with collecting systems for urban waste water meeting the requirements of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water and/or urban waste water treatment systems satisfying the requirements of Article 4 of that directive, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2003.


title: Case C-156/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Digibet Ltd., Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2013 — Digibet Ltd., Gert Albers v Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG
   (Case C-156/13)
   2013/C 189/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Digibet Ltd., Gert Albers

      Respondent: Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it represent an inconsistent restriction on the gambling sector where:

                           —

                           on the one hand, in a member state organised as a federal state, the organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the internet is, in principle, prohibited by the law in force in the overwhelming majority of the Länder (federal states) and — without an established right — can only be allowed, exceptionally, for lotteries and sporting bets in order to provide a suitable alternative to the illegal supply of games of chance as well as to combat the development and spread thereof, but

                           —

                           on the other hand, under the law in force in one of that member state’s Länder, subject to certain specified objective conditions, an authorisation for the marketing of sporting bets on the internet must be issued to any EU citizen or equivalent legal person, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the restriction on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the rest of the Federal Republic in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which it pursues?

               2.

               Does the answer to the first question depend on whether the different legal position in one Land removes altogether or significantly undermines the effectiveness of the restrictions on the marketing of games of chance on the internet in force in the other Länder in achieving the legitimate public interest objectives which they pursue?
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

               3.

               Is the inconsistency avoided by the Land with the divergent regulation adopting the restrictions on games of chance in force in the rest of the Länder, ever where, in relation to the administrative licensing contracts already concluded there, the previous more generous rules on internet games of chance in that Land remain in force for a transitional period of several years because those authorisations cannot be revoked, or cannot be revoked without incurring compensation payments which the Land would find difficult to bear?

               4.

               Does the answer to the third question depend on whether, during the transition period of several years, the effectiveness of the restrictions on games of chance in force in the other Länder is removed altogether or significantly undermined?


title: Case C-681/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Articles 5 and 23(2) — Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine — Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority — Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/22

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others
   (Case C-681/11) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Articles 5 and 23(2) - Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine - Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority - Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)
   2013/C 225/36
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt

      Respondents: Schenker & Co. AG, ABX Logistics (Austria) GmbH, Alpentrans Spedition und Transport GmbH, Logwin Invest Austria GmbH, DHL Express (Austria) GmbH, G. Englmayer Spedition GmbH, Express-Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH, A. Ferstl Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, Spedition, Lagerei und Beförderung von Gütern mit Kraftfahrzeugen Alois Herbst GmbH & Co. KG, Johann Huber Spedition und Transportgesellschaft mbH, Kapeller Internationale Spedition GmbH, Keimelmayr Speditions- u. Transport GmbH, Koch Spedition GmbH, Maximilian Schludermann, as insolvency administrator of Kubicargo Speditions GmbH, Kühne + Nagel GmbH, Lagermax Internationale Spedition Gesellschaft mbH, Morawa Transport GmbH, Johann Ogris Internationale Transport- und Speditions GmbH, Logwin Road + Rail Austria GmbH, Internationale Spedition Schneckenreither Gesellschaft mbH, Leopold Schöffl GmbH & Co. KG, ‘Spedpack’-Speditions- und Verpackungsgesellschaft mbH, Johann Strauss GmbH, Thomas Spedition GmbH, Traussnig Spedition GmbH, Treu SpeditionsgesmbH, Spedition Anton Wagner GmbH, Gebrüder Weiss GmbH, Wildenhofer Spedition und Transport GmbH, Marehard u. Wuger Internat. Speditions- u. Logistik GmbH, Rail Cargo Austria AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Vienna) — Interpretation of the provisions of European Union law relating to cartels, in particular of Article 101 TFEU — Fine imposed on transport undertakings participating in a pricing cartel — Error of law on the part of those undertakings with regard to the lawfulness of the cartel

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which has infringed that provision may not escape imposition of a fine where the infringement has resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of the terms of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority.
   Article 101 TFEU and Articles 5 and 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU is established, the national competition authorities may by way of exception confine themselves to finding that infringement without imposing a fine where the undertaking concerned has participated in a national leniency programme.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-143/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — UMG Recordings/OHMI — Osman (MOTOWN)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/41

         Action brought on 30 April 2007 — UMG Recordings/OHMI — Osman (MOTOWN)
   (Case T-143/07)
   (2007/C 140/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: UMG Recordings, Inc. (Santa Monica, USA) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jimmy Osman (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant petitions the Court:

               —

               to admit its brief and documents appended thereto and consider an appeal to have been filed in good time and due order against the decision issued by OHIM's Second Board of Appeal on 15 February 2007 in Case R-523/2006-2 and following completion of appropriate procedural steps, to render judgment in due course overturning that decision and expressly ordering OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for revocation: the word Community trade mark ‘MOTOWN’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 25, 41 and 42 — application No 206 243

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: UMG Recordings

      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: Jimmy Osman

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the revocation request for all contested services in Class 42 and rejected it insofar as it was directed against services in Class 41

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal lodged by Jimmy Osman

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 50(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
   The applicant claims that the Board allegedly erred in its assessment of evidence submitted to prove the use of its mark with regards to the contested services in Class 41.
   First, the applicant submits that the Board failed to consider that the contested mark was the subject of acts of use for the contested services by both the registered proprietor and third parties with the proprietor's consent.
   Secondly, according to the applicant the Board confused ‘discotheques services’ with ‘the organisation of musical events’ while it did not take into account that they fell into different categories of services.
   Thirdly, the applicant contends that, even assuming that it did not participate either directly or indirectly in the provision of ‘discotheques services’ and/or the ‘organisation of musical events’ it should have been held that it did render specific services falling within the aforementioned categories and that the provision of those ‘sub-services’ served to overcome the obligation to use its mark for so-called general categories of services (namely, the contested services).


title: Case C-577/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), lodged on 10 December 2012 — Michaela Hopfgartner

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), lodged on 10 December 2012 — Michaela Hopfgartner
   (Case C-577/12)
   2013/C 79/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michaela Hopfgartner

      Defendant authority: Finanzamt Wien

      Question referred

   Does European Union law, in particular the provisions on the freedom to provide services (Article 56 et seq. TFEU), preclude a rule of national law under which an extension of the right to family allowance exists only if — along with other preconditions — the place in which voluntary practical help is provided is situated within national territory?


title: Case T-411/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Gerolf Annemans v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/32

         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Gerolf Annemans v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-411/05)
   (2006/C 36/69)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerolf Annemans (represented by: C. Symons, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare void the European Commission's decision of 5 September 2005 (Case COMP/39.225) in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 of the EC Treaty.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant states that he has lodged a complaint against Belgacom and Telenet with the Commission, alleging infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC on the market for broadband internet connections to end users.
   In response, the Commission informed the applicant that at that time it saw no reason, in view of the facts alleged by the applicant, to initiate a further investigation and that its point of view, based on the information available to its services, is provisional whilst awaiting additional indications that the applicant might wish to submit.
   The applicant submits, first, that it is not for the complainant to search for proof of his complaint, but that this is for the Commission itself on the basis of the substantive presumptions, advanced by the complainant.
   According to the applicant, the Commission's statement that providers often determine their prices by reference to the market leader is an insufficient explanation regarding the question whether the almost non-existent difference between the internet prices of Telecom and Telenet is a result of pure coincidence in the free market or of a breach of Article 81 EC.
   The applicant also submits that although higher prices in Belgium, cited by him in his application, do not in themselves prove that there has been an infringement of Article 82 EC, neither do they prove that there has been no infringement. For that reason the Commission cannot, on that basis, clear the undertakings at issue of infringements of Article 82 EC.
   The applicant also states that the Commission is wrong to doubt that Belgacom, and Telenet have a dominant position on the Belgian market. The applicant states that both operators apply approximately the same high prices and between them have almost 90 % of the Belgian market for broadband Internet access. The applicant also submits that no conclusion may be drawn from the fact that there are competitive and lower-price internet connections with lower download speed on the market. According to the applicant, the Commission contradicts itself moreover when it argues that, on the one hand, the Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie (BIPT) guarantees competition and, on the other hand, that this institution is currently investigating whether competition on the Belgian market is indeed thoroughly guaranteed.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission fails to substantiate its claim that there is an insufficient community interest.


title: Case C-388/05: Action brought on  24 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/5

         Action brought on 24 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-388/05)
   (2006/C 22/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Aresu and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           (a)

                           prior to 28 December 1998, the date for the designation of the Special Protection Area (SPA) ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’, the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligations under Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds in so far as it failed to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting birds likely to have significant consequences, with reference to the plan designated ‘the regional agreement’ and the projects outlined therein, which were liable to have an impact on the habitats and species within IBA (Important Bird Area) No 94 (from IBA Catalogue 89) ‘Gargano Promontory’ and which have in fact brought about a deterioration of habitats and resulted in serious disturbances affecting birds within the above IBA[s];

                           (b)

                           after 28 December 1998, the date for the designation of the Special Protection Area (SPA) ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’, the Italian Republic failed to meet its obligations under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) and Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By failing to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting birds likely to have significant consequences, with reference to the plan designated ‘the regional agreement’ and the projects outlined therein, within the area subsequently designated as the Special Protection Area (SPA) ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’, the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and, after 28 December 1998, under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) and Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 206 of 22.07.1992, p. 7.