title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2001 in Case T-104/00: Giovanni Cubeta v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfer to a new place of employment — Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowances — Conditions of grant)

text:
C 227/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Genoese port authorities and the Compagnia Unica Lavoratori
                                                                           Merci Varie — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                           of 2 May 2001                                   composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
                                                                           J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Case T-104/00: Giovanni Cubeta v Commission of the                      20 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                           1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Officials — Transfer to a new place of employment —                       2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred
Installation allowance — Daily subsistence allowances —                          by the Commission.
                       Conditions of grant)
                          (2001/C 227/34)                                  (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-104/00: Giovanni Cubeta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
represented by C. Moreau and P. Birden, avocats, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the
applicant, first, an installation allowance in a sum equivalent                                     of 24 April 2001
to two months’ basic salary and, second, daily subsistence
allowances — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:                    in Case T-172/00: Jean-Pierre Pierard v Commission of
A. Potocki); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Regis-                            the European Communities (1)
trar, has given a judgment on 2 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                (Officials — Posting linked to membership of the Staff
                                                                           Committee — Applicant not immediately re-assigned to his
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          original post on the expiry of his term of office — Action
                                                                           partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                                              unfounded)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-172/00: Jean-Pierre Pierard, an official of the
                        of 20 March 2001                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                           Woluwé-Saint-Lambert (Belgium), represented by J. Lombart
in Case T-59/00: Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v                        and E. Boigelot, avocats, with an address for service in
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                          Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) — application, first,
                                                                           for annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
(Actions for annulment — Competition — Port services
                                                                           rejecting the applicant’s request that he be re-assigned to his
— Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Preparatory act —
                                                                           original service on the expiry of his term of office as a member
                           Inadmissibility)
                                                                           of the Staff Committee and, second, for compensation for the
                                                                           non-material damage allegedly suffered — the Court of
                          (2001/C 227/35)                                  First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
                                                                           President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         Registrar, made an order on 24 April 2001, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-59/00: Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa, estab-
                                                                           1.    The action is dismissed;
lished in Genoa (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Michele
Giacomini and Barbara Della Barile, lawyers, with an address               2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and L. Pignataro) —
application for annulment of the alleged decision of the                   (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
Commission of 22 December 1999 rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that Articles 82
EC and 86(1) EC were infringed by the Italian Republic, the


title: Case T-211/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
23.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            lished for the sale outside the United States of spare parts for
                                                                           its construction equipment infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The applicant was an official at the Commission. By the                    The Commission rejected that complaint by its contested
decision challenged the Commission reprimanded the applicant               decision. In support of its action, the applicant claims that
following alleged false statements made by the him in connec-              the defendant made manifest errors of fact, as well as errors in
tion with his missions and leave.                                          the interpretation and application of the law, in finding that
                                                                           the application to the applicant of the system of selling spare
                                                                           parts for use outside the United States does not constitute an
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Commission Regu-              agreement within the meaning of Article 81 EC and by not
lation No 1 and Article 13 of the EC Treaty. He states that the            applying Article 82 EC although Caterpillar holds a dominant
defendant continued to use French in its letters to him in spite           position in the relevant market. The applicant also puts
of his request to use Danish or English. That constitutes,                 forward alleged infringements of procedural rules and of the
according to the applicant, language discrimination.                       complainant's rights in regard to the allegedly excessive length
                                                                           of the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant,
Secondly, the applicant pleads breach of medical confidentiality           the alleged failure to give reasons for the contested decision,
in so far as the defendant consulted its medical staff to                  the alleged lack of diligence and impartiality of the defendant
ascertain whether the applicant was fit to attend the hearing.             in the examination of the complaint, as well as the alleged
That opinion can be based, according to the applicant, only on             infringement of Article 6 of Regulation 2842/1998/EC (1) in
his medical history and his file and therefore constitutes a               that new matters appear for the first time in the contested
breach of professional secrecy.                                            decision without the applicant being able to submit its obser-
                                                                           vations with regard thereto.
Thirdly, the applicant pleads irregularities in the procedure in
so far as the complaints were not clearly formulated in the                (1) OJ 1998 L 354 p. 18.
minutes recording the opening of the disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant also pleads an infringement of rules of law, in
particular of Article 71 and Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-204/03)
                          (2003/C 200/49)                                                            (Case T-211/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/50)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
established in Sorgues (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis,
lawyer, which an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—     annul the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003                      13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l., represented by
      rejecting its complaint against Caterpillar;                         P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano. Industrias Químicas Naber S.A.
                                                                           was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
—     so far as necessary, undertake all measures of inquiry to            Appeal.
      order the Commission to produce all the documents
      relevant to determination of the dispute;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order OHIM and also Industrias Químicas Naber S.A., in
                                                                                the event that it should intervene, to pay the costs of the
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission against                     present proceedings together with the costs of the admin-
the Caterpillar Corporation, claiming that the system it estab-                  istrative proceedings before OHIM.
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/28              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  damage either the sum of [CONFIDENTIAL] or such
                                                                                amount as the Court in its discretion might order;
Applicant for Community          The applicant
trade mark:
                                                                           —     order that interest is payable in respect of the compensa-
                                                                                tion awarded from the date of judgment establishing the
                                                                                obligation to make good the damage in this case at the
Community       trade   mark     Figurative mark ‘FABER’ Appli-                  rate of 8 % per annum or such other rate as the Court in
sought:                          cation No 676.353 sought for                    its discretion may order;
                                 products 1, 2 and 3 (chemicals
                                 and industrial adhesives)
                                                                           —     order that the costs of this application should be paid by
                                                                                the Commission.
Proprietor of mark or sign       Industrias    Químicas      NABER
cited in the opposition pro-     S.A.
ceedings:
Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish trade marks ‘NABER’
position:                        (registration     Nos      801.202,       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                 2.072.120,               2.072.121,
                                 2.072.122) for products in
                                 classes 1, 2 and 3
                                                                           The applicant, formerly know as Airtours plc, seeks compensa-
                                                                           tion from the Commission by way of damages for harm
                                                                           caused to it by the decision of the Commission in Case
                                                                           No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice (1), declaring the
Decision of the Opposition       Rejection of the opposition               concentration between the applicant and First Choice incom-
Division:                                                                  patible with the common market.
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                   The applicant contends that the conduct of the Commission in
Appeal:                                                                    carrying out its review of the proposed acquisition of First
                                                                           Choice by Airtours breaches rules of law which are intended
                                                                           to confer rights on individuals. The applicant claims more in
                                                                           particular that the Commission infringed Article 2 of Council
                                                                           Regulation 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between
Grounds of the application:      Wrongful        application      of
                                                                           undertakings (2) and the general principles of sound adminis-
                                 Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Regula-
                                                                           tration, care and diligence.
                                 tion No 40/94 (risk of confu-
                                 sion)
                                                                           The applicant submits that in committing these breaches the
                                                                           Commission manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its
                                                                           discretion, and that these breaches were sufficiently serious to
                                                                           warrant reparation under Article 288 EC Treaty.
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group plc
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-212/03)                                   The applicant refers in this respect to the judgment in Case
                                                                           T-342/99, Airtours/Commission (3), annulling the Decision of
                         (2003/C 200/51)                                   the Commission in Case No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
                                                                           Choice. The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           made due allowance for the margin of appreciation permitted
                                                                           to the Commission, but nonetheless found that the decision
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    was vitiated by a series of manifest errors of assessment
                                                                           regarding the creation of a dominant position. Such a manifest
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           error established in annulment proceedings equates according
European Communities on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group
                                                                           to the applicant, to a manifest disregard for the limits of
plc, Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by D. Pannick,
                                                                           discretion and constitutes a sufficiently serious breach.
QC, Mr A. Lewis, Barrister, Mr M. Nicholson and Ms S. Cardell,
Solicitors.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant also submits that the fact that the Commission
—     order that the Commission should pay to the applicant                enjoys a margin of discretion does not absolve it from the
      under Article 288(2) EC Treaty as compensation for                   obligation to observe the principles of sound administration.


title: Case T-475/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission (State Aid — Mobile telephony — Alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the UMTS licences — Decision finding no State aid)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission
   (Case T-475/04) (1)

   (State Aid - Mobile telephony - Alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the UMTS licences - Decision finding no State aid)
   (2007/C 199/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bouygues and Bouygues Tèlécom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: L. Vogel, J. Vogel, B. Amory, A. Verheyden, F. Sureau and D. Théophile, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.L. Buendia Sierra and C. Giolito, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents); Société française de radiotéléphone — SFR (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Vadja QC and A. Vincent, lawyer; and Orange France SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the Commision's decision of 20 July 2004 (State aid NN 42/2004 — France) concerning alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System) licences.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom SA jointly and severally to pay their own costs, those of the Commission and those of Orange France SA and Société française de radiotéléphone — SFR

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 19.3.2005.


title: Case C-517/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 22 November 2007 — Afton Chemical Limited v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 22 November 2007 — Afton Chemical Limited v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-517/07)
   (2008/C 22/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Afton Chemical Limited

      Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do fuel additives such as those at issue, which are not intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel but which are added to motor fuel for purposes other than powering the vehicle in which the fuel is used, fall to be taxed under Article 2(3) of Directive 92/81/EC?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative, do such additives fall within the scope of the exemption under Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81/EC (1)?

               3.

               Do fuel additives such as those at issue, which are not intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel but which are added to motor fuel for purposes other than powering the vehicle in which the fuel is used, fall to be taxed under the second paragraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96/EC (2)?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is affirmative, are such additives excluded from the scope of Directive 2003/96/EC by virtue of the first indent of Article 4(b) of that Directive?

               5.

               Is the duty imposed by the UK on the above fuel additives precluded by Community law and in particular, by Article 3 of Directive 92/12/EEC (3)?

      (1)  OJ L 316, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ L 283, p. 51.

      (3)  OJ L 76, p. 1.


title: Case C-103/04: Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/30

         Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-103/04)
   (2004/C 94/67)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March 2004 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and J.G.M. van Bakel, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Decision 2004/1/EC (1) insofar as, in that decision, the Commission takes the view that its approval under Article 95(6) EC is required for the maintenance of Dutch rules on uses of short-chain chlorinated paraffins for which no provision is made in Directive 2002/45/EC; (2)

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Netherlands Government takes the view that the Commission acted in breach of Article 95(4) and (6) EC, in conjunction with Directive 2002/45/EC, by approving the maintenance of the national measures laid down in the Chlorinated Paraffins Decision WMS only to the extent that those measures have been notified to it in accordance with Article 95(4) EC and approved by it in accordance with Article 95(6) EC.
   As is apparent from the wording of Article 95(4) EC, the maintenance of national measures is subject to approval by the Commission only where a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions. Such approval is not required, however, for the maintenance of national measures that relate to an area (or, as in the present case, uses) for which no provision is made in the relevant Community rules or that pursue a different objective.
   The Netherlands Government takes the view that, insofar as they relate to uses other than those provided for in Directive 2002/45/EC, the measures for implementing the PARCOM Decision 95/1, laid down in the Chlorinated Paraffins Decision WMS, do not fall within the scope of that directive so that their maintenance is not subject to approval by the Commission under Article 95(6) EC.
   Directive 2002/45/EC concerns exclusively restrictions on the marketing of SCCPs for use, in concentrations higher than 1 %, as substances or as constituents of other substances or preparations in metalworking or for fat liquoring of leather.
   Directive 2002/45/EC expressly does not deal with other uses. Measures relating to softening agents and flame retardants are therefore not covered by the provisions of the Directive. With respect to those uses, the Member States are free to adopt independent measures, which do not require to be notified to the Commission under Article 95(4) EC. The marketing of SCCPs as a substance or constituent for uses other than those referred to in Directive 2000/45/EC therefore does not fall within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 1, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 177, p. 21.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-195/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Ministerie van Financiën v Merabi Papismedov and Others (Community Customs Code — Presentation of goods to customs — Meaning — Cigarettes declared under the description ‘cookware’ — Incurrence of the customs debt on importation — Debtor of the customs debt)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-195/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen): Ministerie van Financiën v Merabi Papismedov and Others (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Presentation of goods to customs - Meaning - Cigarettes declared under the description ‘cookware’ - Incurrence of the customs debt on importation - Debtor of the customs debt)
   (2005/C 106/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-195/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium), by decision of 7 May 2003, received at the Court on 12 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Ministerie van Financiën and Merabi Papismedov and Others, intervening parties: KBC Lease Belgium NV, Volvo Truck Finance Belgium NV — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of J.-P. Puissochet, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Goods presented to customs, for which a summary declaration was lodged and an external Community transit document validated, were not lawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community if, in the documents lodged with the customs authorities, the goods were wrongly designated.

               2.

               The customs debt in respect of goods presented to customs and declared under an incorrect designation is based on Article 202 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.

               3.

               It is for the national court to establish, in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings, whether the person who lodged the summary declaration or the customs declaration was, because he stated an incorrect designation, responsible for the unlawful introduction of the goods. If such is not the case, it is for that court to consider whether, by that action, the person participated in the introduction of the goods whilst he was or should reasonably have been aware that it was unlawful.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-12/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on  11 January 2006  — Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2006 — Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren
   (Case C-12/06)
   (2006/C 121/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iris Bucher

      Defendant: Landrat des Kreises Düren
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full course of study in another Member State on the ground that the course does not constitute the continuation of attendance at a German education or training establishment for a period of at least one year?

               2.

               Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an education or training grant to one of its nationals, who as a cross-border commuter is pursuing her course of study in a neighbouring Member State, on the grounds that she is residing at a border location in Germany only for education or training purposes and that that place of abode is not her permanent residence?


title: Case C-106/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC — Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues — Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-106/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)
   (2008/C 22/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to develop and implement, within the prescribed period, waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-310/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2013 — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v Corinna Silber

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2013 — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v Corinna Silber
   (Case C-310/13)
   2013/C 260/37
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH

      Claimant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Corinna Silber

      Question referred

   Must Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, as a ‘special liability system’, the German system of liability for pharmaceutical products is in general not affected by that directive, with the result that the national system of liability for pharmaceutical products may be further developed, or must that provision be interpreted as meaning that no extension is permitted to the situations covered by the liability system for pharmaceutical products existing at the point in time at which the directive was notified (30 July 1985)?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).


title: Case C-526/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Laboratoires Boiron SA v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales (Urssaf) de Lyon, assuming the rights and obligations of the Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS), (State aid — Articles 87 and 88(3) CE — Tax on direct sales of medicines — Applicable to pharmaceutical laboratories rather than wholesale distributors — Prohibition on implementing a non-notified aid measure — Possibility of pleading that an aid measure is unlawful in order to obtain reimbursement of a charge — Compensation for discharging public service obligations imposed on wholesale distributors — Burden of proof in relation to overcompensation — Detailed rules laid down by national law — Prohibition on making reimbursement of a charge practically impossible or excessively difficult)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Laboratoires Boiron SA v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales (Urssaf) de Lyon, assuming the rights and obligations of the Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS),
   (Case C-526/04) (1)

   (State aid - Articles 87 and 88(3) CE - Tax on direct sales of medicines - Applicable to pharmaceutical laboratories rather than wholesale distributors - Prohibition on implementing a non-notified aid measure - Possibility of pleading that an aid measure is unlawful in order to obtain reimbursement of a charge - Compensation for discharging public service obligations imposed on wholesale distributors - Burden of proof in relation to overcompensation - Detailed rules laid down by national law - Prohibition on making reimbursement of a charge practically impossible or excessively difficult)
   (2006/C 281/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laboratoires Boiron SA

      Defendant: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales (Urssaf) de Lyon, assuming the rights and obligations of the Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation — Interpretation of Articles 86 and 87 — Classification as State aid of the absence of liability to a tax on wholesale sales of proprietary medicinal products by wholesalers subject to certain public service obligations in relation to their range, stocks and delivery times of products (wholesale distributors)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Community law must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmaceutical laboratory liable to pay a contribution such as that provided for by Article 12 of Law No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding for 1998 is entitled to plead that the fact that wholesale distributors are not liable for that contribution constitutes State aid in order to obtain reimbursement of the part of the sums paid which corresponds to the economic advantage unfairly obtained by wholesale distributors.

               2.

               Community law does not preclude the application of rules of national law which make reimbursement of a mandatory contribution such as that provided for in Article 12 of Law No 97-1164 subject to proof by the claimant seeking reimbursement that the advantage derived by wholesale distributors from their not being liable to pay that contribution exceeds the costs which they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed on them by the national rules and, in particular, that at least one of the conditions laid down in the judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747 is not satisfied.
               However, in order to ensure compliance with the principle of effectiveness, if the national court finds that the fact of requiring a pharmaceutical laboratory such as Boiron to prove that wholesale distributors are overcompensated, and thus that the tax on direct sales amounts to State aid, is likely to make it impossible or excessively difficult for such evidence to be produced, since inter alia that evidence relates to data which such a laboratory will not have, the national court is required to use all procedures available to it under national law, including that of ordering the necessary measures of inquiry, in particular the production by one of the parties or a third party of a particular document.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Case C-137/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 13 and 14c — Legislation applicable — Self-employed persons — Social security scheme — Insurance — Person employed or unemployed in a Member State — Self-employed activity in another Member State — Company agent — Residence in a Member State other than the State where the company has its registered office — Management of the company from the State of residence — National legislation establishing an irrebuttable presumption of pursuing a professional activity as a self-employed person in the Member State where the company has its registered office — Obligatory insurance with that State’s social security scheme for self-employed persons)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA
   (Case C-137/11) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 13 and 14c - Legislation applicable - Self-employed persons - Social security scheme - Insurance - Person employed or unemployed in a Member State - Self-employed activity in another Member State - Company agent - Residence in a Member State other than the State where the company has its registered office - Management of the company from the State of residence - National legislation establishing an irrebuttable presumption of pursuing a professional activity as a self-employed person in the Member State where the company has its registered office - Obligatory insurance with that State’s social security scheme for self-employed persons)
   2012/C 366/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Partena ASBL

      Defendant: Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail — Interpretation of Article 21 TFEU and Articles 13 and 14c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Worker simultaneously employed in the territory of one Member State and self-employed in the territory of another Member State — Whether a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to tax in that State is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons — Non-discrimination and citizenship of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law, in particular Articles 13(2)(b) and 14c(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, and Annex VII thereto, precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in so far as it allows a Member State to presume irrebuttably that management from another Member State of a company subject to tax in the first Member State has taken place in that first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2003 in Case C-224/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2003
   in Case C-224/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Transition from ECSC regime to EC regime - Application for a declaratory finding - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2004/C 94/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-224/03: Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignataro and A. Whelan) — application for a declaration that, under Article 97 CS, with effect from 24 July 2002 the powers and competence of the Commission of the European Communities in the sectors assigned under the ECSC Treaty to the High Authority have lapsed, with the result that any measure adopted or to be adopted by it in those sectors which have not formed the subject-matter of a new agreement by the signatory states is to be deemed null and void and of no effect — the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 9 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The application is dismissed.

               2)

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 184


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2005 in Case C-215/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te 's-Gravenhage): Salah Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (Free movement of persons — Right of entry and residence for nationals of Member States — Requirement to present an identity card or a passport — Pre-condition for recognition of right of residence — Penalty — Detention order for the purpose of deportation)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 17 February 2005
   in Case C-215/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te 's-Gravenhage): Salah Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (1)

   (Free movement of persons - Right of entry and residence for nationals of Member States - Requirement to present an identity card or a passport - Pre-condition for recognition of right of residence - Penalty - Detention order for the purpose of deportation)
   (2005/C 115/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-215/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands), made by decision of 12 May 2003, received at the Court on 19 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Salah Oulane and Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate General, M. F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The third paragraph of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services is to be interpreted as meaning that the recognition by a Member State of the right of residence of a recipient of services who is a national of another Member State may not be made subject to his production of a valid identity card or passport, where his identity and nationality can be proven unequivocally by other means.

               2.

               It is contrary to Article 49 EC for nationals of a Member State to be required in another Member State to present a valid identity card or passport in order to prove their nationality, when the latter State does not impose a general obligation on its own nationals to provide evidence of identity, and permits them to prove their identity by any means allowed by national law.

               3.

               A detention order with a view to deportation in respect of a national of another Member State, imposed on the basis of failure to present a valid identity card or passport even when there is no threat to public policy, constitutes an unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services and is therefore contrary to Article 49 EC.

               4.

               It is for nationals of a Member State residing in another Member State in their capacity as recipients of services to provide evidence establishing that their residence is lawful. If no such evidence is provided, the host Member State may undertake deportation, subject to the limits imposed by Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


title: Case C-237/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/11

         Action brought on 16 May 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-237/12)
   2012/C 217/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Simon and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not guaranteeing correct and full implementation of all requirements laid down in Annexes II and III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(4) of, and Annexes II (A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5) and III (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2) to, that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission criticises the defendant on the ground that it has failed correctly and fully to implement all of the requirements laid down in Article 5(4) of, and in Annexes II (A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5) and III (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2) to, Directive 91/676/EEC. The Commission has doubts as to whether the national legislation complies with the European Union law relating to:

               —

               the periods during which the land application of fertiliser is inappropriate, or indeed prohibited;

               —

               the capacity for storage of livestock manures;

               —

               the method of calculating the amount of nitrogen to be applied for purposes of balanced fertilisation;

               —

               the quantitative limitation of the land application of livestock manures;

               —

               the regulation of the land application of fertiliser to steeply sloping ground;

               —

               the regulation of the land application of fertiliser to water-saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case C-398/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Common commercial policy — Countervailing duties — Protection against subsidies — Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 — Stainless steel wires — Injury to the Community industry — Causal link)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-398/05) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Countervailing duties - Protection against subsidies - Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 - Stainless steel wires - Injury to the Community industry - Causal link)
   (2008/C 107/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen
   Re:
   Reference for preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 1999 L 189, p. 1) — Appraisal of harm caused to the Community industry, causal link with imports of subsidised goods
   Operative part of the judgment
   Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-462/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2017 — Tänzer & Trasper GmbH v Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft
   (Case C-462/17)
   (2017/C 347/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tänzer & Trasper GmbH

      Defendant: Altenweddinger Geflügelhof Kommanditgesellschaft

      Question referred

   Are the components listed in category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) the minimum components that a spirit drink must contain in order to be permitted to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’ (a minimum specification) or is category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 an exhaustive list of the components that are permissible in a product seeking to bear the sales denomination ‘egg liqueur’?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-310/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/88)
   By order of 28 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-310/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-37/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014  — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (TEEN VOGUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TEEN VOGUE — Earlier national word mark VOGUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (TEEN VOGUE)
   (Case T-37/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TEEN VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical nature of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Partial refusal to register))
   2014/C 102/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (case R 1763/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Eduardo López Cabré and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1997 by KIA Nederland BV and Broekman Motorships BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-195/97)

text:
No C 252/40           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
Action brought on 30 June 1997 by KIA Nederland BV                         exported and they have not undergone any operation
and Broekman Motorships BV against the Commission of                       beyond that necessary to preserve them in good
                  the European Communities                                 condition while in that country'.
                        ( Case T-195/97 )
                          ( 97/C 252/83 )                                  Since the import duties paid by the applicant were not
                                                                           due in law, the applicants are entitled to repayment
                                                                           under Article 236 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                              92 .
An action against the Commission of the European                       Alternative claim
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
by KIA Nederland BV, established in Vianen, and                        D. General reasonableness clause
Broekman Motorships BV, established in Rotterdam, both
represented by A. T. Ottow, of Houthoff Advocaten &
Notarissen, Amsterdam, with an address for service in                      If the Court finds that the import duties were due in
Luxembourg at the chambers of C. Medernach, of the                         law, the applicants are entitled to repayment of the
Luxembourg Bar, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                    duties under the 'general reasonableness clause'
                                                                           contained in Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC) No 2913/
                                                                           92 and Article 905 ( 1 ) and the first paragraph of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Article 907 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 .
— annul the Commission decision of 8 April 1997,
    addressed to the Netherlands, ( Ref: REM 23/96 )
    according to which the repayment of import duties is
    not justified in particular circumstances,
                                                                       Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Weyl Beef Products
                                                                       BV (previously Exportslagerij Weyl BV) against the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-197/97 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/84 )
A. Inconsistency in grounds of reasoning
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
    The decision is based entirely on the position that the
    requirements of Article 75 of Regulation ( EEC )                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    No 2454/93 , specifying the products which may be
    considered as 'transported direct', are not fulfilled.             Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 1997 by
    Moreover, by failing to consider whether there were                Weyl Beef Products BV (previously Exportslagerij Weyl
                                                                       BV), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the
    exceptional circumstances within the meaning of
                                                                       Amsterdam Bar, and S. B. Noe, of the Rotterdam Bar,
    Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92, such as
    to justify a repayment, the Commission failed to fulfil            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
    its duty of investigation.
    The Commission decision is therefore based on an                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    incorrect legal premise and is thus flawed or, at least,
    fails to state in sufficient detail the reasoning on which         — declare void the decision of the Commission of the
    it was based .
                                                                           European Communities contained in the Commission's
                                                                           letter to the applicant dated 23 April 1997 in Case
                                                                           No IV/35.591 /F-3 Weyl / PW+SSR,
B. In this case, the requirement of 'transported direct'
    within the meaning of Article 75 of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 2454/93 is fulfilled. Since there is no question of             — find that the rules and agreements for the
    the products being 'transported through the territory                  reorganization of the Netherlands' cattle slaughtering
    of any other country', under Article 75 ( 1 ) ( a ) of                 sector infringe Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 they must therefore be
    considered to be 'transported direct from                 the
    exporting beneficiary country to the Community'.                   — order all other measures considered to be necessary,
C. Article 76 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 is satisfied            — order the Commission of the European Communities
    since 'the goods returned are the same goods as those                  to pay the costs.


title: Case C-367/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Pier Paolo Fabretti v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Pier Paolo Fabretti v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-367/13)
   2013/C 260/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pier Paolo Fabretti

      Defendants: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Roma — Ufficio Controlli

      Question referred

   Is it incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty for persons resident in Italy to be required to declare for tax purposes, and be liable for tax on, winnings obtained from casinos in Member States of the European Union, as provided for by Article 67(1)(d) of Presidential Decree No 917 of 22.12.1986 (‘the TUIR’), or must this be regarded as justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, pursuant to Article 46 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case C-464/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Avena Nordic Grain Oy

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/46

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Avena Nordic Grain Oy
   (Case C-464/06)
   (2006/C 326/94)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Avena Nordic Grain Oy

      Defendant: Finnish Ministry of Land and Agriculture
   Question(s) referred
   Is Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, (1) in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and good administration, to be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authority may recognise an export declaration sent as a fax copy prior to the loading operation if it takes the view that there is not the least suspicion of fraud, the defect in the transmission of the export declaration was based on an error which was made in connection with advice given by the authority and the latter was able to establish that the signed original export declaration sent subsequently was identical in every way to the faxed copy?

      (1)  of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11).


title: Case T-356/08: Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/48

         Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-356/08)
   (2008/C 285/88)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Khalkias and E. Leftheriotou)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               uphold the Hellenic Republic's action and annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety or otherwise alter it in accordance with the matters that have been more specifically set out, ordering that no correction be made with regard to arable crops for the crop years 2004 and 2005 or, in any event, that the correction be restricted to 5 % and only to expenditure in respect of durum wheat;

               —

               deduct the sum of EUR 609 833,96 from the correction imposed of EUR 127 714 520,73 and from any correction that may be imposed after the bringing of the present action;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3411 of 8 July 2008, published under No 2008/582/EC, which excludes expenditure amounting to EUR 127 714 520,73 incurred by the Hellenic Republic from Community financing, in the context of the clearing of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of the claim for annulment.
   By the first plea for annulment, which concerns the correction applicable to durum wheat crops and to matters other than durum wheat, it is submitted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (1), Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1593/2000 (2), Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (3) and Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4) since it is permissible, on the basis of the provisions in question, to identify land using alternative cartographic material that is equivalent to orthophoto maps, or otherwise that the Commission erred in its assessment of the facts and stated inadequate reasons for the corrections. The applicant also pleads a lack of legal basis for imposing the correction since the Commission misinterpreted the facts and exceeded the limits of its discretion, so far as concerns its determination that the on-site checks were not carried out in time.
   In the second plea for annulment, the applicant alleges a lack of lawful basis and of a sufficient statement of reasons, with regard to the alleged repetition of breaches and infringement of the principles of proportionality and of the protection of legitimate expectations, because, according to the applicant, the Commission had been informed of the court proceedings that were delaying the completion of the system of control and, on its recommendation and in cooperation with it, the applicant engaged in an action plan for that purpose.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1593/2000 of 17 July 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 2000 L 182, p. 4).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2002 L 74, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).


title: Case T-457/10: Action brought on 26 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/47

         Action brought on 26 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-457/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul DIGIT’s decision to select the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2009/045 “External service provision for development, studies and information systems” (OJEU 2009/S 198-283663), for Lot 2 “Off-site development projects”, for the award of the above procurement contract as third contractor in the cascade mechanism instead of first contractor and all the related decisions of DIGIT including the one to award the contact to the successful contractors;

               —

               order DIGIT to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 30 000 000 for Lot 2 and the amount of EUR 3 000 000 for damages for loss of opportunity and damage to its reputation and credibility;

               —

               order DIGIT to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision of 16 July 2010 to select its bid in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2009/045 “External service provision for development, studies and information systems” (1), for Lot 2 “Off-site development projects”, as third contractor in the cascade mechanism instead of first cascade contractor and of all the related decisions of the defendant including those to award the respective contracts to the first and second cascade contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following grounds.
   First, the applicant argues that the Commission has infringed Articles 93 and 94 of the financial regulation (2) and the principles of good administration and transparency as well as Articles 106 and 107 of the financial regulation because several members of the winning consortium did not comply with the exclusion criteria since they should have been found to be in serious breach of previous contracts, and one member of the winning consortium was involved in fraud, corruption and briberies, while several members of the winning consortia use non WTO/GPA based subcontractors.
   Furthermore, the applicant argues that the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment as well as Articles 89 and 98 of the financial regulation and Article 145 of its implementing rules were infringed since a conflict of interest existed in the person of several evaluators.
   The applicant further contends that vague and irregular award criteria were used during the evaluation thus infringing Article 97 of the financial regulation and Article 138 of the implementing rules.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contracting authority has failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful tenderer and has committed several manifest errors of assessment while evaluating its tender as well as the one of the winning consortia. In the applicant’s opinion, the contracting authority has also used vague and unsubstantiated comments in its evaluation report thus violating the obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  OJ 2009/S 198-283663

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case T-37/11: Order of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 — Recovery of part of the amount paid — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/14

         Order of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-37/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) - Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 - Recovery of part of the amount paid - Challengeable act - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 250/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and G. Koós, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and F. Coudert, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of debit note No 3241011280 issued by the Commission on 28 October 2010 after the final report on the clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006 was sent to Hungary.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Hungary is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case C-429/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 July 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2013 in Case T-384/10 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/40

         Appeal brought on 26 July 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 May 2013 in Case T-384/10 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-429/13 P)
   2013/C 260/71
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               in any event, uphold the appeal and set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 in Case T-384/10 Kingdom of Spain v European Commission;

               —

               annul in part, as set out, Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061); and

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant alleges that the General Court committed an error of law in considering that any network constitutes a ‘work’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.
   The appellant further submits that the judgment under appeal departs from the case-law (Case C-16/98 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-8315) in failing to take account of the need for geographical continuity of the works taken as a whole and of the interdependence between them, namely, the interconnectivity required for the provision of services.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54


title: Case C-427/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/31

         Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-427/08)
   (2008/C 285/52)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbaek and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 141.


title: Case T-557/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Criminal proceedings before a national court — Decision of the institution to become a civil party — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly unfounded — Procedural irregularities — Conditions for the application of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission
   (Case T-557/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Criminal proceedings before a national court - Decision of the institution to become a civil party - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly unfounded - Procedural irregularities - Conditions for the application of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations))
   (2016/C 392/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar and subsequently by C. Ehrbar and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in De Esteban Alonso v Commission (F-35/15, EU:F:2015:87), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Fernando De Esteban to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case C-303/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Headlong Limited v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása
   (Case C-303/17)
   (2017/C 269/08)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Headlong Limited

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Központi Irányítása

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it relevant, for the purposes of the reply to be given to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in Case [C-3/17] by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság, that the administrative penalty does not consist of a fine but of temporary inaccessibility of electronic data for a period of 90 days, a penalty which is fundamentally different (for example the provision of the service is temporarily suspended, the penalty decision is not notified and it is not subject to appeal) and which the national authority may also impose cumulatively, in the same act, as well as a fine?

               2.

               In view of the nature, seriousness and method of imposing the administrative penalty of temporary inaccessibility of electronic data for a period of 90 days, and, above all, of the impossibility of appealing against it, can it be considered, in accordance with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), that that penalty is in itself a disproportionately serious restriction of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 17(1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a restriction which, in its current form, cannot be justified by the objectives of consumer protection established by the Member State in the field of games of chance?

               3.

               Is it relevant, for the purposes of the reply to be given to the sixth question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case [C-3/17] by the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság that the Member State does not ensure the adoption of the rules necessary for obtaining — either by call for tenders for the award of licences, or submitting a tender [to contract] — a licence to organise online casino games, and for this reason service providers cannot obtain the necessary administrative licences for offering the service?


title: Case T-138/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014  — Evonik Oil Additives v OHIM — BRB International (VISCOTECH) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISCOTECH — Earlier national and international word marks VISCOPLEX — Evidence of the territorial extent and validity of an earlier international trade mark — Rule 19(2) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 — Relative grounds of refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 — Evonik Oil Additives v OHIM — BRB International (VISCOTECH)
   (Case T-138/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VISCOTECH - Earlier national and international word marks VISCOPLEX - Evidence of the territorial extent and validity of an earlier international trade mark - Rule 19(2) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 - Relative grounds of refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Oil Additives GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: BRB International BV (Ittervoort, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2012 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Evonik Degussa GmbH and BRB International BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evonik Oil Additives GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case T-576/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schenker Customs Agency v Commission (Customs Union — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Importation of glyphosate originating from Taiwan — Application for remission of import duties submitted by a customs agent — Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Fairness clause — Special situation — Declarations for release for free circulation — Certificates of incorrect origin — Concept of obvious negligence — Commission decision declaring remission of duties not justified)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 April 2015 — Schenker Customs Agency v Commission
   (Case T-576/11) (1)

   ((Customs Union - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Importation of glyphosate originating from Taiwan - Application for remission of import duties submitted by a customs agent - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Fairness clause - Special situation - Declarations for release for free circulation - Certificates of incorrect origin - Concept of obvious negligence - Commission decision declaring remission of duties not justified))
   (2015/C 190/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Schenker Customs Agency BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Biermasz and A. Jansen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Keppenne and F. Wilman and subsequently by A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, Agents, and by Y. Van Gerven, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 5208 final of 27 July 2011, finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 01/2010).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Schenker Customs Agency BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-310/16: Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/40

         Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Foshan Lihua Ceramic v Commission
   (Case T-310/16)
   (2016/C 305/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: B. Spinoit and D. Philippe, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016)2136 final of 15 April 2016 rejecting a request for a new exporting producer treatment with regard to the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the sample exception applied by the Commission infringes Articles 11(5) and 11(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community as well as Article 9.5 of the WTO-Agreement

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment, as the Commission recently applied the new exporter review provisions of Article 11(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 with regards to a case involving a Korean exporter.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of factual assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s fundamental right of defence. The Applicant puts forward that the Commission refers to and bases its decision on (i) the existence of a company which cannot and has not exported during the original investigation period and which cannot and is not a legal, corporate linkage to other exporters; (ii) information to which the Applicant had never access and could never comment, and (iii) alleged events in a hearing for which no record or minutes exist.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, as the Commission based its decision on an alleged discrepancy of, on the one hand, the audited production figures after the original investigation period given by the Applicant, and, on the other hand, commercially influenced website data.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of legal assessment as the Commission based its decision on legal concepts which do exist neither in law nor in practice.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a motivation based not on facts but on assumptions and a violation of the right to be heard. First, the Applicant puts forward that points 17 to 22 of the contested decision contain manifest errors of assessment based on pure unfounded assumptions. Second, according to the Applicant, the fact that important and substantial facts and arguments submitted by the Applicant are totally ignored and disregarded is a violation of the Applicant’s right to an ‘effective’ hearing by the Commission.


28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 94/17
      Removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-267/96 (1)
                         (98/C 94/41)                                                       (98/C 94/44)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-314/97 (Reference for          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):             removal from the register of Case C-267/96: Republic of
Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-             France, supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v.
wesen v. Bauer Spezialzeitschriften Verlag KG.                     European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-146/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-58/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/42)
                                                                                (98/C 94/45)
By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                 By order of 19 December 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-146/97: Commission             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                  removal from the register of Case C-58/97: Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-100/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/43)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-68/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/46)
By order of 11 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-100/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                      By order of 20 January 1998, the President of the Court
Luxembourg.                                                        of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-68/97: Commission of
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.


title: Case T-538/08: Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — KODI Diskontläden (inéa) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/45

         Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — KODI Diskontläden (inéa)
   (Case T-538/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 113/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KODI Diskontläden GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 (Case R 744/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between KODI Diskontläden GmbH and REWE-Zentral AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.